https://www.sarna.net/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=PerkinsC&feedformat=atomBattleTechWiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T17:36:43ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.4https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=368026Talk:Main Page2014-08-24T01:54:21Z<p>PerkinsC: request add infantry to Unit Categories</p>
<hr />
<div>= Rules for editing the front page =<br />
* Please discuss here if you have other ideas for the front page, or play on the [[Main_Page_Test | Main Page (Test)]] if you want to show your ideas. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 02:05, 4 October 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
= Comments regarding the Main Page/Wiki-in-General =<br />
<br />
==Add "Infantry Platoon" to Unit Categories==<br />
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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 18:54, 23 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Add "Category" to the sidebar==<br />
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.<br />
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.--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] 14:46 EDT 5 June 2009.<br />
: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.<br />
: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. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 06:34, 6 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
::Even quicker way of getting to '''Categories''' than that. Check out the sidebar at the very top, in the section under '''Classic BattleTech Wiki'''. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 09:44, 6 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
:::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.--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] 23:12 EDT 7 June 2009.<br />
::::Not a problem. If there is a way to make the site easier to use, we want it hear it. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:32, 7 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== "Deep Periphery" under "Factions" ==<br />
* 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.--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] 12:12 6 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: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. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:13, 6 May 2009 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Exactly why I waited on any revisions here. Oh, I am sorry if I have been a little impatient in editing or authoring.--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] 00:16 7 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Posting canon files ==<br />
* 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 [['Mech]]s, [[ASF]]s, [[ProtoMech]]s, [[Battle Armor]], [[DropShip]]s, [[JumpShip]]s, [[WarShip]]s 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. [[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 11:04, 17 September 2006 (CDT)<br />
** 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. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 14:52, 17 September 2006 (CDT)<br />
*** 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? [[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 00:04, 18 September 2006 (CDT)<br />
**** 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. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 01:05, 18 September 2006 (CDT)<br />
*** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Tables#External_links HTML converters]<br />
<br />
== Cooperation with Wikipedia ==<br />
* Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:BattleTech 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BattleTech#Cooperation_with_BattleTechWiki at Wikipedia].--[[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]] 19:18, 9 November 2006 (CST)<br />
* 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. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 02:20, 13 November 2006 (CST)<br />
* 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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 09:50, 13 November 2006 (CST)<br />
* I have created [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:BattleTechWiki the template at Wikipedia]. If an article on BTWiki has the same name as on Wikipedia, slapping this template ()<nowiki>{{BattleTechWiki}}</nowiki> 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.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]] 18:23, 18 November 2006 (CST)<br />
** 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). --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 23:38, 18 November 2006 (CST)<br />
*** Let's wait a bit to get established before we write an article about BTW on Wikipedia. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 20:55, 21 November 2006 (CST)<br />
*** I've created {{tl|Wikipedia}} to facilitate our linking between the sites. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 21:41, 21 November 2006 (CST)<br />
****Thanks for catching this, Nic. I had forgotten. I'll put it on the appropriate Help page. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 00:20, 22 November 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Edit request ==<br />
<br />
Could someone please update the exoskeletons line under the units section to get rid of the spelling error?<br />
:Fixed. Thanks, Mystery Requestor. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 09:47, 6 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== User Count ==<br />
<br />
Could we get more convenient links to our User Counts? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 20:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Have you tried [[Special:UserScore|this one]]? (Can also access some other neat stuff [[Special:SpecialPages|here]].) What I'd really like is to have a tool such as [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Jason+Quinn&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia this one] to use here. <nowiki>{{sigh}}</nowiki>--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Protomechs ==<br />
<br />
hello, im new in here and english is not my mothertongue...<br />
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...<br />
<br />
thanks heinzbond...<br />
ps i cannot find the link to create a new account...{{Unsigned|name}}<br />
<br />
== Images of ==<br />
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"--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Looks like the already existing category uses the "BattleMech Images" Style.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The "New Look" of the left navbar ==<br />
<br />
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? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 14:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
: I may have missed the whole thing. Is it still bothering you, for I don't see anything different. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Same here, I don't see any change? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 12:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::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.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Additions to the "Other Items of Note" List==<br />
*BattleMech & Vehicle Weapons: [[:Category:Weapons|Canon]] / [[:Category:WeaponsCustom|Custom]]<br />
*Infantry Weapons: [[:Category:InfantryWeapons|Canon]] / [[:Category:InfantryWeaponsCustom|Custom]]<br />
*Battle Armor Weapons: [[:Category:BattleArmorWeapons|Canon]] / [[:Category:BattleArmorWeaponsCustom|Custom]]<br />
*Capitol Weapons: [[:Category:CapitolWeapons|Canon]] / [[:Category:CapitolWeaponsCustom|Custom]]<br />
<br />
or<br />
<br />
*BattleMech & Vehicle Weapons: [[:Category:Weapons|Canon]] / [[:Category:Weapons_Custom|Custom]]<br />
*Infantry Weapons: [[:Category:Infantry_Weapons|Canon]] / [[:Category:Infantry_Weapons_Custom|Custom]]<br />
*Battle Armor Weapons: [[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons|Canon]] / [[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons_Custom|Custom]]<br />
*Capitol Weapons: [[:Category:Capitol_Weapons|Canon]] / [[:Category:Capitol_Weapons_Custom|Custom]]<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
: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).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Another thing to consider is Linking to category for infantry platoons. remember, the infantry platoon is the unit that BT focouses on for infantry--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::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.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::::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.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::::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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::::::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:<br />
:::::::*Weapons: Capital/Vehicle/Battle Armor/Infantry/Custom. Would that work?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::::::2 lines... 1 line for the canon, 1 line for the custom, custom weapons could exist at all scales. <br />
<br />
*(category with underscore)<br />
*Canon Weapons: [[:Category:Capital_Weapons|Capital]]/[[:Category:Weapons|Vehicular]]/[[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons|Battle Armor]]/[[:Category:Infantry_Weapons|Infantry]]<br />
*Custom Weapons: [[:Category:Capital_Weapons_Custom|Capital]]/[[:Category:Weapons_Custom|Vehicular]]/[[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons_Custom|Battle Armor]]/[[:Category:Infantry_Weapons_Custom|Infantry]]<br />
<br />
or<br />
<br />
*(category without underscore)<br />
*Canon Weapons: [[:Category:CapitalWeapons|Capital]]/[[:Category:Weapons|Vehicular]]/[[:Category:BattleArmorWeapons|Battle Armor]]/[[:Category:InfantryWeapons|Infantry]]<br />
*Custom Weapons: [[:Category:CapitalWeaponsCustom|Capital]]/[[:Category:WeaponsCustom|Vehicular]]/[[:Category:BattleArmorWeaponsCustom|Battle Armor]]/[[:Category:InfantryWeaponsCustom|Infantry]]<br />
<br />
--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 12:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::::::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?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::::::No they don't. Weird.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::::::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.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::[[: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".--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::[[:Category:Battle Armor Weapons]] will be fine.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Periphery Commands==<br />
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 --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 01:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
: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. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
::I guess I could live with that. But I think the "Military commands" category could do with a little cleaning up and organizing.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 00:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::: I will see if I can spare a bit of time in the next couple of days to tidy it up a bit then. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 05:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)<br />
Any more thoughts or progress on seeing this done? --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 23:49, 22 December 2011 (PST)<br />
:Done. I greatly prefer linking to the parent category than to the eleven sub-categories. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 05:21, 23 December 2011 (PST)<br />
::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. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 14:33, 23 December 2011 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Spam==<br />
<br />
Seems to became rampant in the last few days? [[User:Panzerknacker|Panzerknacker]] 05:52, 30 June 2012 (PDT)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:BobTheZombie&diff=367587User talk:BobTheZombie2014-08-19T02:32:58Z<p>PerkinsC: /* question about changing the case in parentheticals */</p>
<hr />
<div>''[[User talk:BobTheZombie/2013 Archive|2013 Archive]]''<br />
{{_TOC_}}<br />
==Proofreading==<br />
''Feel free to add any pages you want proofread or cleaned up to the bottom of this list and I will go through and clean them up.''<br />
*[[26th Lyran Guards]]<br />
*[[St. Ives Academy of Martial Sciences Training Group]]<br />
*[[1st Shin Legion]]<br />
*[[Tikonov Guards]]<br />
*[[2nd Tikonov Guards]]<br />
*[[1st Tikonov Guards]]<br />
*[[3rd Tikonov Guards]]<br />
*[[Spidermech]]<br />
*[[Lucien Davion]]<br />
*[[Huntress (BattleMech)]]<br />
*[[History]]<br />
<br />
{{Welcome|BobTheZombie|}}<br />
<br />
==Weapons List==<br />
*[[User_talk:Wrangler#Weapon_Lists|Please see my response.]] -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 11:01, 19 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:Almost done... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 11:07, 19 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:::No worries. If there something going on you think i should be ware of, that fine with me. Keep the good work up! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 13:41, 19 January 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Operation Guerrero==<br />
Hello. How much time do I have to make the corrections? I understand that this is a placeholder that will be put back into the main article when done. Also... if you are adding the Chaos March worlds, you should also add the Disputed Territories too.--[[User:Aldous|Aldous]] ([[User talk:Aldous|talk]]) 17:48, 20 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:Take as long as you need to add those; I have plenty of other stuff to work on in the meantime. And yes, all the stuff to the end needs references (or to be added if something is missing). Thanks. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:25, 21 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::Be advised that Zurich wasn't part of the second wave. You should add a section that covers actions by rebels/revolutionaries/terrorists that were supported by Marik Mercs. Northwind would fall under this category.--[[User:Aldous|Aldous]] ([[User talk:Aldous|talk]]) 04:43, 21 January 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Content==<br />
Hello, I moved all content of the pages which are listed of the CCAF -talk page. You can now delete the pages with out any further concern. With best regards [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 00:46, 26 January 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Cockpit Page==<br />
Again, thank you for writing this page. You deserve this: [[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]]<br />
--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] ([[User talk:S.gage|talk]]) 09:58, 1 February 2014 (PST)<br />
:Why, thank you! I guess it could still use some work, but I first wanted to save it from the decrepit form it used to have. Thanks again! -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 10:44, 1 February 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
==SIAMS Training Group==<br />
Hello. Why is Leftenant General not italicized but Sao Shao is?--[[User:Aldous|Aldous]] ([[User talk:Aldous|talk]]) 18:25, 19 February 2014 (PST)<br />
:Leftenant General falls under the category of normal ranks that don't need to be italicized. See [[Policy talk:Manual of Style#Military Rank Italics|the policy talk page concerning this]]:<br />
*"Usually only Chinese and Japanese ranks get italics." - Mbear<br />
*"Unless the title is in a foreign language, it should not be italicized." - Scaletail<br />
:That is why I thought the rank in question didn't need the italics, but the others did. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 18:34, 19 February 2014 (PST)<br />
::Spot on. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Casual Edit Award ==<br />
Good morning Bob (I have to keep reminding myself to not type Bub - I've watched Day of the Dead too many times)<br><br />
I'm impressed with the tempo of work you've kept up on here since joining, and the way that you're doing things like bringing up issues in talk pages - basically, doing all the right things. I was going to give you another Act of Appreciation Award when I noticed that you didn't have a Casual Edit Award. Casual Edit Awards are notionally for when "an editor witnesses another editor making a minor addition or correction to any random article." I'd say I'm a little surprised you don't have one, but I'm going to award you one now:<br><br />
[[File:CE.jpg|Casual Edit Award, 1st ribbon]]<br><br />
Once I've checked your contributions log to make sure that you've made at least one edit to a random file, of course... {{Emoticon| ;) }} [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (PST)<br />
:Thank you very much! That means a lot to me, though sadly I've never seen Day of the Dead before... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 14:36, 28 February 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Assistance Appreciated Award==<br />
Hey Bob, I have taken the liberty of giving you a Assistance Appreciated Award for your sterling service in helping out with the situation dealing with House Military Layouts. I am not always the most diplomatic of chaps and you stepped in and calmly and efficiently presented a very good idea of putting it to the wider community. Thank you. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 02:23, 14 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Thanks for that; I don't even know why but I just made an account there recently and wanted to help Sarna through it. I'm planning more outreach to them in the near future. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 07:15, 14 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Re-Engineered Lasers==<br />
Hi BobTheZombie, do you want me to spruce up the other Re-Engineering Laser articles? Game Play/Construction Rules should be listed seperately or least be in uniformed. I think my weakest point was the infobox, its kinda confusing for me. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 19:10, 16 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Sure, go ahead and work on them; the infobox looked fine by the way. Sorry, too much going on at the moment, will check back tomorrow. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 20:01, 16 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
==New Layout for military pages==<br />
Hello BobTheZombie, I discover that all text will be displayed from an article until the first sub section begins, I hope that information will help you in some way. With best regards [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 15:55, 18 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you talking about the summary at the beginning of an article? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
::I Thik when you used the onlyinclude tags, the text is repeat until the first sub section of the page. When you use a whort summary and then start the text with a section like historical or overview it only whows the paragraph until then. I hope my explanaition is not to bad. With best regards [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 16:24, 18 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::If you're talking about my sandbox, then yes, I was hiding what I had had on the page with onlyinclude tags so that I could still see it but not have to delete all the info. I simply forgot to fully add the intro and have since revamped the page. I think I understand all you were trying to say. Please forgive me for my difficulty in understanding you. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 05:06, 19 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Casual Edit Award: Spidermech==<br />
[[File:CE 1bol.jpg|Casual Edit Award, 2nd ribbon]]I'm happy to see how you whipped the [[Spidermech]] article into shape between the three of you. This particular article has been a thorn in my side for some time because I knew it needed a serious rework but I knew nothing about the subject matter myself. So, for getting this out of my head, I'm giving each of you a Casual Edit Award (2nd ribbon). Thanks! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:46, 21 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:I haven't even played MechAssault, but I thought that that article needed some help. Thanks! -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 07:29, 21 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== TPTB Rulings ==<br />
Hi Bob,<br><br />
Thanks for including a reference to the TPTB ruling on the origin of the name of the [[LB-X Autocannon]] in the article - personally, I think one of the roles for Sarna to play is to track rulings from TPTB on [[canon]] detail that aren't specified in the published material; things like errata and rulings that tend to get lost whenever CGL backs up it's forums, or has it crashed. Anyway, I'd like to give you this award as thanks:<br><br />
[[File:RAA_2bol.jpg|Random Act of Appreciation Award, 3rd ribbon]]<br><br />
However, there is one thing I'd ask - when you're including details of a ruling or something similar in an article, can you also directly quote the detail either in the Notes section, as I've done with articles like the one on [[Colonial Tractors]], or in the Talk page for the article, as Frabby's done with the ''[[Full Moon]]'' article? Whenever TPTB update their boards, we end up with dead links - copying the text itself across preserves that ruling, and hopefully makes Sarna more useful for those doing research. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 11:09, 24 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Thank you! It was by pure chance that I saw that post and decided it should be added to the page. I completely forgot about quoting it and will try to remember to do that if I find more in the future. Thanks once again! -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 15:20, 24 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
::You definitely had the right instincts when it came to flagging up Herb's ruling in the article here. What made me sensitive to making sure that the quotes themselves are included was when I was doing some work on updating the WarShip class pages and I found a reference on (I think) the ''[[Kyushu]]'' that talked about the fate of various ships having been confirmed by the Developers, complete with a link - that that led nowhere, because the boards had been hacked after the link was generated, and the area was inaccessible through internet resources like the Wayback Machine, making it impossible to dig the ruling out. I hate the idea of losing relevant information when we can do something to preserve it here {{Emoticon| ;) }} [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 01:25, 25 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::Why yes, of course that makes complete sense! I agree that placing the actual text here is a great idea, and I guess I hadn't thought of it, but there must have been a lot of information loss at the great BT crash of 2011. I just have to remember how it gets all laid out when you do add it though... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:23, 25 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
::::I normally just go back to an entry I've already used a quote in and copy and paste - Colonial Tractors is my go-to at the moment. It catches me out when people change title/post though - Herb's no longer Lead Developer, for example, although I keep forgetting that. One problem I have found that isn't obvious is that some URLs don't work well with the quote code. It's usually best to use the URL for a message within a thread, rather than for the thread - thread title URLs seem to break the quote code. You can tell if that's the problem because the mask for the hyperlink shows up empty. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 12:46, 25 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::::I remembered that he wasn't but he posted in the developers thread and didn't care much. I'll try to find urls to posts inside next time. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 13:01, 25 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Formatting ==<br />
Hi Bob,<br><br />
I'm doing my morning catch-up on the Ask the Writers/Developers section and I spotted your question about formatting. I think I know where you may have seen it detailed already - Mbear has a copy of it on his user page here, based on the submission criteria for BattleCorps writers as-was... Frabby has since confirmed that there's a more up-to-date version of the guidelines in use with the BattleCorps writers, but didn't get a response when he asked for permission to post it, so we're still working to the older version here. The only difference on Sarna is that for wiki categorisation purposes, unit article names use the numerical format regardless, so that they show up in the correct order, and in the last year or so I think we've started actively switching over to following the writing conventions consistently. There was a debate about it on one of the policy pages here somewhere, although I'm blowed if I can work out where. I don't know if that helps at all? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:19, 7 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:To wit, while there is a more refined style guide document floating around in NDA space, I don't think there is a difference in the actual rulings, compared to the publicly accessible one. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:37, 7 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
::I knew that we had something but wondered if they could give anything more detailed/up to date; I was specifically wondering about the centuries thing and wanted to know how all that was so when I get more time I can reference that and clean some stuff up. I just wish my schedule could open up so I could be on here more than a minute at a time... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:50, 7 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== MP in infobox. ==<br />
<br />
Short answer: No. Long answer: We don't want to do that because MP isn't always relevant. You have Alpha Strike, BattleForce, etc. which can use different methods of determining MP. <br />
<br />
The fluff speeds (96km/h) are always correct, and for BattleTech you just divide the speed by 10 to get the number of MPs.<br />
<br />
And besides, do you really want to have to update the thousands of articles we have for 'Mechs, tanks, VTOLs, etc. that this would require? *shudder*.<br />
<br />
BTW, you can get a faster answer and insure all the admins see your question by posting on the [[BattleTechWiki:Administrators]] talk page.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 10:47, 9 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Okidoki. I was simply bringing it up because someone requested I do so. And yes, I know that it would have been thousands of pages; Thanks for the response. I just hope I can kindly explain this... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:17, 9 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::may I suggest "The decision was made because MP isn't the only movement measure in the BattleTech family of games. By providing the speed in km/h, it's possible to compute the MP for all the other games as well."--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 03:30, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, that should work, and next time I'll go to the Admin page; I didn't try it because I didn't think of it, I guess. Also, what about the armor idea? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::I don't mind people talking to me on my page - I like seeing the little message bar appear when I log in {{Emoticon| :) }} Although, sadly, it's not because people are giving me awards so much these days. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Yeah, I'm probably the worst about giving out awards because I never think of it; that is of course until someone give me one, then I feel bad. I really should hand out more given I patrol the recent changes... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:46, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::What armor idea?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 04:31, 11 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I mentioned on BM's talk page that they also wanted armor points, but that's going too specific. Sorry about the confusion. It would have helped if I had posted at one place; I will next time. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:56, 11 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
::::No problem. We don't usually get that detailed. There are other websites that go into that much detail, we don't want to be one of them.<br />
::::And the scattered messages problem is why I suggested the Admin page. {{Emoticon| ;) }}-[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 07:38, 11 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Army page survey ==<br />
<br />
Hey, what were the results of your survey over on the forums?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 07:47, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:From [[BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands]]:<br />
<br />
:*AFFS (the new way) - 4<br />
:*A mix of the two - 6<br />
:*FWLM (the old way) - 2<br />
<br />
:I also have the Layout thread saved in a text document if you want it; the formatting was lost, but all the info is still there. It looks like they've since removed it from the BT forums. There was also one person's response on NGNG that was included in the above voting results. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Fanon wiki URL? ==<br />
<br />
Bob,<br />
<br />
What URL do you have for the Fanon wiki? I just want to be sure I send people to the same place you do. The one I have is http://battletechfanon.wikia.com/wiki/BattleTech_Fanon_Wiki Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 04:22, 16 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Yes, that's the one; I didn't know there were any other BT fanon wikis... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:45, 16 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
::I don't know if there are, but I thought we should all be on the same page. (Pardon the pun.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 04:58, 16 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::Hahaha... yeah I don't know why I didn't link to the fanon wiki (or more specificially, the page). Just too much on my mind I guess. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 14:41, 16 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== New unit pages ==<br />
''Copied from Doneve's talk page.''<br />
Hey can you do me a favor? When you put together a new unit page like [[Kappa Galaxy (Clan Jade Falcon)]], just mark it as a stub page. Don't include the update needed tag. The page is so empty that stub is a better reflection of what needs to be done. Thank you!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 05:26, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:I could help out; so the update needed tag need to be removed? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 07:16, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
::Ideally yes, the Update Needed tag would be removed. The UN tag was created to inform users that an article needed an update from a source that was under Moratorium. It later morphed into what we have today.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 09:28, 25 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::Okay, makes sense; I will work on that later this weekend but can't do much at the moment because of internet issues. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 15:01, 25 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Re-Role ==<br />
Hi Bob,<br><br />
I just wanted to let you know there's a technical difference between rerolled - as in "the dice were rerolled" - and re-roled, as in "7 Para (V) were re-roled, becoming a standard light infantry battalion". To re-role a military unit or item of equipment is to change it's organization, structure or use to fill a new capability role. Every time there's a military restructuring here in the UK you'll read news about various units being re-roled (assuming they aren't disbanded) and when vehicles start getting used for something other than the task for which they were purchased, they're referred to as having been re-roled. It's not a phrase unique to the UK military either - you can see the Canadian military using the term here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE8TvSZ_UvY [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 11:49, 24 July 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Ah, yes, that makes sense; that's what happens when I don't pay enough attention. I'll be sure to watch for that in the future. Should I revert those which I changed, or are you going to? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 11:53, 24 July 2014 (PDT)<br />
::There are others? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 13:34, 24 July 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::There were more, but I think I got them all. I wrote that before just getting them. Sorry for the confusion. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 15:39, 24 July 2014 (PDT)<br />
== Cave Lion ==<br />
Hi BobTheZombie, when i get home today, I'll work on Cave Lion if no one jumps on between now and then. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 04:51, 5 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Cool! That would be quite helpful. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 09:23, 5 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
::::I've finished the revision to the [[Cave Lion]]. Please feel free to edit it to clear up any grammer issues i may had with it! I had problem with your MUL reference link on the Production Year line of the info box when i transferred the information over to a updated Infobox. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 19:18, 5 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::::Thanks! I'm short on time now, but will get back to it and finish proofreading it soon. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 21:46, 5 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::::Okay, I'm finished with it. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 17:44, 9 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Doctor X==<br />
Thank you BobTheZombie. Wow that sounds like a lot, I'll just call ya Bob, ok and y'all can just call me Craig :) I did have the chance to make my first edit, Its on the Fidelis page, the part about the Dante-Class Frigate. It may not be as grammatically correct as it should be (blame that on early morning insomnia) but as a first attempt it wasn't too bad. Managed to get the reference thing worked out with just a little difficulty, kinda proud of that one.) I'm sure that once I become more comfortable with editing that i'll move on to article creating. but that is later, for now I'll just stick to making the corrections that annoy me the most, grammar and readability. that should satisfy my minor OCD...lol.[[User:Doctor X|Doctor X]] ([[User talk:Doctor X|talk]]) 18:03, 13 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Okay, "Craig" {{Emoticon| ;) }}; yes I saw the edits and good work there, but a little hint: if you hit the "Show preview" button (Next to the "Save page" button), it will allow you to see how the edit will look if you save it, and you can then edit more but save it once you've made all the changes on the page that you want. This way the history section of each page stays a little tidier. Either way will get the job done, but the preview way is there so you can make sure it looks right. Also, if you're wondering where to start, there's always the [http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cleanup list of pages tagged with "cleanup needed"], which could always use some grammatical work. It's up to you what you want to do, so just pitch in where you can. And yes, a little OCD always helps {{emoticon| :D }} -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 19:21, 13 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==question about changing the case in parentheticals==<br />
Article Titles are generally capitalized, including disambig like (Battle Armor) being either Battle Armour mounted or built to be mounted on the same. why did you change (Battle Armor) to (battle armor) on the heavy machine gun?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 23:01, 17 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Hello; the reason for it was a sweeping change brought by the conversation [http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Talk:Battle_Armor#Capitalization here] that established "Battle Armor" was wrong and "battle armor" is correct. I was under the assumption that it should have been changed, but perhaps we need to discuss it. It wouldn't be too hard to change them all back, just some time. Now that I checked, the [[Policy:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] is lacking anything covering the capitalization of titles. Thank you for pointing this out; I had had second thoughts as well, but we can discuss it in-depth over at the manual of style talk page. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
::Battle Armor is part of the title, you capitalize the title, upper or lower case in the paragraph is a matter of the style manual, but Title Case is used for Article Titles Section Headers and File Names--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (PDT)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:BobTheZombie&diff=367544User talk:BobTheZombie2014-08-18T06:01:45Z<p>PerkinsC: question about changing the case in parentheticals</p>
<hr />
<div>''[[User talk:BobTheZombie/2013 Archive|2013 Archive]]''<br />
{{_TOC_}}<br />
==Proofreading==<br />
''Feel free to add any pages you want proofread or cleaned up to the bottom of this list and I will go through and clean them up.''<br />
*[[26th Lyran Guards]]<br />
*[[St. Ives Academy of Martial Sciences Training Group]]<br />
*[[1st Shin Legion]]<br />
*[[Tikonov Guards]]<br />
*[[2nd Tikonov Guards]]<br />
*[[1st Tikonov Guards]]<br />
*[[3rd Tikonov Guards]]<br />
*[[Spidermech]]<br />
*[[Lucien Davion]]<br />
*[[Huntress (BattleMech)]]<br />
*[[History]]<br />
<br />
{{Welcome|BobTheZombie|}}<br />
<br />
==Weapons List==<br />
*[[User_talk:Wrangler#Weapon_Lists|Please see my response.]] -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 11:01, 19 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:Almost done... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 11:07, 19 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:::No worries. If there something going on you think i should be ware of, that fine with me. Keep the good work up! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 13:41, 19 January 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Operation Guerrero==<br />
Hello. How much time do I have to make the corrections? I understand that this is a placeholder that will be put back into the main article when done. Also... if you are adding the Chaos March worlds, you should also add the Disputed Territories too.--[[User:Aldous|Aldous]] ([[User talk:Aldous|talk]]) 17:48, 20 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:Take as long as you need to add those; I have plenty of other stuff to work on in the meantime. And yes, all the stuff to the end needs references (or to be added if something is missing). Thanks. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:25, 21 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::Be advised that Zurich wasn't part of the second wave. You should add a section that covers actions by rebels/revolutionaries/terrorists that were supported by Marik Mercs. Northwind would fall under this category.--[[User:Aldous|Aldous]] ([[User talk:Aldous|talk]]) 04:43, 21 January 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Content==<br />
Hello, I moved all content of the pages which are listed of the CCAF -talk page. You can now delete the pages with out any further concern. With best regards [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 00:46, 26 January 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Cockpit Page==<br />
Again, thank you for writing this page. You deserve this: [[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]]<br />
--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] ([[User talk:S.gage|talk]]) 09:58, 1 February 2014 (PST)<br />
:Why, thank you! I guess it could still use some work, but I first wanted to save it from the decrepit form it used to have. Thanks again! -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 10:44, 1 February 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
==SIAMS Training Group==<br />
Hello. Why is Leftenant General not italicized but Sao Shao is?--[[User:Aldous|Aldous]] ([[User talk:Aldous|talk]]) 18:25, 19 February 2014 (PST)<br />
:Leftenant General falls under the category of normal ranks that don't need to be italicized. See [[Policy talk:Manual of Style#Military Rank Italics|the policy talk page concerning this]]:<br />
*"Usually only Chinese and Japanese ranks get italics." - Mbear<br />
*"Unless the title is in a foreign language, it should not be italicized." - Scaletail<br />
:That is why I thought the rank in question didn't need the italics, but the others did. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 18:34, 19 February 2014 (PST)<br />
::Spot on. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Casual Edit Award ==<br />
Good morning Bob (I have to keep reminding myself to not type Bub - I've watched Day of the Dead too many times)<br><br />
I'm impressed with the tempo of work you've kept up on here since joining, and the way that you're doing things like bringing up issues in talk pages - basically, doing all the right things. I was going to give you another Act of Appreciation Award when I noticed that you didn't have a Casual Edit Award. Casual Edit Awards are notionally for when "an editor witnesses another editor making a minor addition or correction to any random article." I'd say I'm a little surprised you don't have one, but I'm going to award you one now:<br><br />
[[File:CE.jpg|Casual Edit Award, 1st ribbon]]<br><br />
Once I've checked your contributions log to make sure that you've made at least one edit to a random file, of course... {{Emoticon| ;) }} [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (PST)<br />
:Thank you very much! That means a lot to me, though sadly I've never seen Day of the Dead before... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 14:36, 28 February 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Assistance Appreciated Award==<br />
Hey Bob, I have taken the liberty of giving you a Assistance Appreciated Award for your sterling service in helping out with the situation dealing with House Military Layouts. I am not always the most diplomatic of chaps and you stepped in and calmly and efficiently presented a very good idea of putting it to the wider community. Thank you. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 02:23, 14 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Thanks for that; I don't even know why but I just made an account there recently and wanted to help Sarna through it. I'm planning more outreach to them in the near future. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 07:15, 14 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Re-Engineered Lasers==<br />
Hi BobTheZombie, do you want me to spruce up the other Re-Engineering Laser articles? Game Play/Construction Rules should be listed seperately or least be in uniformed. I think my weakest point was the infobox, its kinda confusing for me. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 19:10, 16 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Sure, go ahead and work on them; the infobox looked fine by the way. Sorry, too much going on at the moment, will check back tomorrow. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 20:01, 16 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
==New Layout for military pages==<br />
Hello BobTheZombie, I discover that all text will be displayed from an article until the first sub section begins, I hope that information will help you in some way. With best regards [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 15:55, 18 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you talking about the summary at the beginning of an article? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
::I Thik when you used the onlyinclude tags, the text is repeat until the first sub section of the page. When you use a whort summary and then start the text with a section like historical or overview it only whows the paragraph until then. I hope my explanaition is not to bad. With best regards [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] ([[User talk:Neuling|talk]]) 16:24, 18 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::If you're talking about my sandbox, then yes, I was hiding what I had had on the page with onlyinclude tags so that I could still see it but not have to delete all the info. I simply forgot to fully add the intro and have since revamped the page. I think I understand all you were trying to say. Please forgive me for my difficulty in understanding you. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 05:06, 19 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Casual Edit Award: Spidermech==<br />
[[File:CE 1bol.jpg|Casual Edit Award, 2nd ribbon]]I'm happy to see how you whipped the [[Spidermech]] article into shape between the three of you. This particular article has been a thorn in my side for some time because I knew it needed a serious rework but I knew nothing about the subject matter myself. So, for getting this out of my head, I'm giving each of you a Casual Edit Award (2nd ribbon). Thanks! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:46, 21 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:I haven't even played MechAssault, but I thought that that article needed some help. Thanks! -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 07:29, 21 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== TPTB Rulings ==<br />
Hi Bob,<br><br />
Thanks for including a reference to the TPTB ruling on the origin of the name of the [[LB-X Autocannon]] in the article - personally, I think one of the roles for Sarna to play is to track rulings from TPTB on [[canon]] detail that aren't specified in the published material; things like errata and rulings that tend to get lost whenever CGL backs up it's forums, or has it crashed. Anyway, I'd like to give you this award as thanks:<br><br />
[[File:RAA_2bol.jpg|Random Act of Appreciation Award, 3rd ribbon]]<br><br />
However, there is one thing I'd ask - when you're including details of a ruling or something similar in an article, can you also directly quote the detail either in the Notes section, as I've done with articles like the one on [[Colonial Tractors]], or in the Talk page for the article, as Frabby's done with the ''[[Full Moon]]'' article? Whenever TPTB update their boards, we end up with dead links - copying the text itself across preserves that ruling, and hopefully makes Sarna more useful for those doing research. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 11:09, 24 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Thank you! It was by pure chance that I saw that post and decided it should be added to the page. I completely forgot about quoting it and will try to remember to do that if I find more in the future. Thanks once again! -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 15:20, 24 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
::You definitely had the right instincts when it came to flagging up Herb's ruling in the article here. What made me sensitive to making sure that the quotes themselves are included was when I was doing some work on updating the WarShip class pages and I found a reference on (I think) the ''[[Kyushu]]'' that talked about the fate of various ships having been confirmed by the Developers, complete with a link - that that led nowhere, because the boards had been hacked after the link was generated, and the area was inaccessible through internet resources like the Wayback Machine, making it impossible to dig the ruling out. I hate the idea of losing relevant information when we can do something to preserve it here {{Emoticon| ;) }} [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 01:25, 25 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::Why yes, of course that makes complete sense! I agree that placing the actual text here is a great idea, and I guess I hadn't thought of it, but there must have been a lot of information loss at the great BT crash of 2011. I just have to remember how it gets all laid out when you do add it though... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:23, 25 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
::::I normally just go back to an entry I've already used a quote in and copy and paste - Colonial Tractors is my go-to at the moment. It catches me out when people change title/post though - Herb's no longer Lead Developer, for example, although I keep forgetting that. One problem I have found that isn't obvious is that some URLs don't work well with the quote code. It's usually best to use the URL for a message within a thread, rather than for the thread - thread title URLs seem to break the quote code. You can tell if that's the problem because the mask for the hyperlink shows up empty. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 12:46, 25 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::::I remembered that he wasn't but he posted in the developers thread and didn't care much. I'll try to find urls to posts inside next time. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 13:01, 25 March 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Formatting ==<br />
Hi Bob,<br><br />
I'm doing my morning catch-up on the Ask the Writers/Developers section and I spotted your question about formatting. I think I know where you may have seen it detailed already - Mbear has a copy of it on his user page here, based on the submission criteria for BattleCorps writers as-was... Frabby has since confirmed that there's a more up-to-date version of the guidelines in use with the BattleCorps writers, but didn't get a response when he asked for permission to post it, so we're still working to the older version here. The only difference on Sarna is that for wiki categorisation purposes, unit article names use the numerical format regardless, so that they show up in the correct order, and in the last year or so I think we've started actively switching over to following the writing conventions consistently. There was a debate about it on one of the policy pages here somewhere, although I'm blowed if I can work out where. I don't know if that helps at all? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 00:19, 7 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:To wit, while there is a more refined style guide document floating around in NDA space, I don't think there is a difference in the actual rulings, compared to the publicly accessible one. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:37, 7 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
::I knew that we had something but wondered if they could give anything more detailed/up to date; I was specifically wondering about the centuries thing and wanted to know how all that was so when I get more time I can reference that and clean some stuff up. I just wish my schedule could open up so I could be on here more than a minute at a time... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:50, 7 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== MP in infobox. ==<br />
<br />
Short answer: No. Long answer: We don't want to do that because MP isn't always relevant. You have Alpha Strike, BattleForce, etc. which can use different methods of determining MP. <br />
<br />
The fluff speeds (96km/h) are always correct, and for BattleTech you just divide the speed by 10 to get the number of MPs.<br />
<br />
And besides, do you really want to have to update the thousands of articles we have for 'Mechs, tanks, VTOLs, etc. that this would require? *shudder*.<br />
<br />
BTW, you can get a faster answer and insure all the admins see your question by posting on the [[BattleTechWiki:Administrators]] talk page.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 10:47, 9 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Okidoki. I was simply bringing it up because someone requested I do so. And yes, I know that it would have been thousands of pages; Thanks for the response. I just hope I can kindly explain this... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:17, 9 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::may I suggest "The decision was made because MP isn't the only movement measure in the BattleTech family of games. By providing the speed in km/h, it's possible to compute the MP for all the other games as well."--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 03:30, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, that should work, and next time I'll go to the Admin page; I didn't try it because I didn't think of it, I guess. Also, what about the armor idea? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::I don't mind people talking to me on my page - I like seeing the little message bar appear when I log in {{Emoticon| :) }} Although, sadly, it's not because people are giving me awards so much these days. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 09:54, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Yeah, I'm probably the worst about giving out awards because I never think of it; that is of course until someone give me one, then I feel bad. I really should hand out more given I patrol the recent changes... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:46, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::What armor idea?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 04:31, 11 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I mentioned on BM's talk page that they also wanted armor points, but that's going too specific. Sorry about the confusion. It would have helped if I had posted at one place; I will next time. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:56, 11 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
::::No problem. We don't usually get that detailed. There are other websites that go into that much detail, we don't want to be one of them.<br />
::::And the scattered messages problem is why I suggested the Admin page. {{Emoticon| ;) }}-[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 07:38, 11 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Army page survey ==<br />
<br />
Hey, what were the results of your survey over on the forums?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 07:47, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:From [[BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands]]:<br />
<br />
:*AFFS (the new way) - 4<br />
:*A mix of the two - 6<br />
:*FWLM (the old way) - 2<br />
<br />
:I also have the Layout thread saved in a text document if you want it; the formatting was lost, but all the info is still there. It looks like they've since removed it from the BT forums. There was also one person's response on NGNG that was included in the above voting results. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Fanon wiki URL? ==<br />
<br />
Bob,<br />
<br />
What URL do you have for the Fanon wiki? I just want to be sure I send people to the same place you do. The one I have is http://battletechfanon.wikia.com/wiki/BattleTech_Fanon_Wiki Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 04:22, 16 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Yes, that's the one; I didn't know there were any other BT fanon wikis... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 04:45, 16 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
::I don't know if there are, but I thought we should all be on the same page. (Pardon the pun.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 04:58, 16 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::Hahaha... yeah I don't know why I didn't link to the fanon wiki (or more specificially, the page). Just too much on my mind I guess. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 14:41, 16 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== New unit pages ==<br />
''Copied from Doneve's talk page.''<br />
Hey can you do me a favor? When you put together a new unit page like [[Kappa Galaxy (Clan Jade Falcon)]], just mark it as a stub page. Don't include the update needed tag. The page is so empty that stub is a better reflection of what needs to be done. Thank you!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 05:26, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:I could help out; so the update needed tag need to be removed? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 07:16, 10 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
::Ideally yes, the Update Needed tag would be removed. The UN tag was created to inform users that an article needed an update from a source that was under Moratorium. It later morphed into what we have today.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 09:28, 25 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::Okay, makes sense; I will work on that later this weekend but can't do much at the moment because of internet issues. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 15:01, 25 April 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Re-Role ==<br />
Hi Bob,<br><br />
I just wanted to let you know there's a technical difference between rerolled - as in "the dice were rerolled" - and re-roled, as in "7 Para (V) were re-roled, becoming a standard light infantry battalion". To re-role a military unit or item of equipment is to change it's organization, structure or use to fill a new capability role. Every time there's a military restructuring here in the UK you'll read news about various units being re-roled (assuming they aren't disbanded) and when vehicles start getting used for something other than the task for which they were purchased, they're referred to as having been re-roled. It's not a phrase unique to the UK military either - you can see the Canadian military using the term here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE8TvSZ_UvY [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 11:49, 24 July 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Ah, yes, that makes sense; that's what happens when I don't pay enough attention. I'll be sure to watch for that in the future. Should I revert those which I changed, or are you going to? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 11:53, 24 July 2014 (PDT)<br />
::There are others? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 13:34, 24 July 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::There were more, but I think I got them all. I wrote that before just getting them. Sorry for the confusion. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 15:39, 24 July 2014 (PDT)<br />
== Cave Lion ==<br />
Hi BobTheZombie, when i get home today, I'll work on Cave Lion if no one jumps on between now and then. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 04:51, 5 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Cool! That would be quite helpful. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 09:23, 5 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
::::I've finished the revision to the [[Cave Lion]]. Please feel free to edit it to clear up any grammer issues i may had with it! I had problem with your MUL reference link on the Production Year line of the info box when i transferred the information over to a updated Infobox. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] ([[User talk:Wrangler|talk]]) 19:18, 5 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::::Thanks! I'm short on time now, but will get back to it and finish proofreading it soon. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 21:46, 5 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:::::Okay, I'm finished with it. -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 17:44, 9 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Doctor X==<br />
Thank you BobTheZombie. Wow that sounds like a lot, I'll just call ya Bob, ok and y'all can just call me Craig :) I did have the chance to make my first edit, Its on the Fidelis page, the part about the Dante-Class Frigate. It may not be as grammatically correct as it should be (blame that on early morning insomnia) but as a first attempt it wasn't too bad. Managed to get the reference thing worked out with just a little difficulty, kinda proud of that one.) I'm sure that once I become more comfortable with editing that i'll move on to article creating. but that is later, for now I'll just stick to making the corrections that annoy me the most, grammar and readability. that should satisfy my minor OCD...lol.[[User:Doctor X|Doctor X]] ([[User talk:Doctor X|talk]]) 18:03, 13 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:Okay, "Craig" {{Emoticon| ;) }}; yes I saw the edits and good work there, but a little hint: if you hit the "Show preview" button (Next to the "Save page" button), it will allow you to see how the edit will look if you save it, and you can then edit more but save it once you've made all the changes on the page that you want. This way the history section of each page stays a little tidier. Either way will get the job done, but the preview way is there so you can make sure it looks right. Also, if you're wondering where to start, there's always the [http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cleanup list of pages tagged with "cleanup needed"], which could always use some grammatical work. It's up to you what you want to do, so just pitch in where you can. And yes, a little OCD always helps {{emoticon| :D }} -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 19:21, 13 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==question about changing the case in parentheticals==<br />
Article Titles are generally capitalized, including disambig like (Battle Armor) being either Battle Armour mounted or built to be mounted on the same. why did you change (Battle Armor) to (battle armor) on the heavy machine gun?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 23:01, 17 August 2014 (PDT)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Template_talk:InfoBoxWeapon&diff=367543Template talk:InfoBoxWeapon2014-08-18T05:45:07Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Technology Advancement */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Technology Advancement==<br />
Now that TRO:Prototypes and TRO:3145 are advancing the technology class of weaponry, I think it might make sense to add new rows to the infobox. These rows would be optional, and show the year a weapon was designated Experimental, Advanced. and Tournament-legal. In my opinion this would be more effective than trying to add it into the text.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 12:04, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:This is a great idea.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 12:06, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::I think that's a good idea. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 12:27, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:::I support this idea.--[[User:Raven 2C|Raven 2C]] ([[User talk:Raven 2C|talk]]) 15:15, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::::OK. Infobox has been updated. You can see it in action on the [[Silver Bullet Gauss Rifle]] page. If you have any suggestions, let me know.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 06:56, 13 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::::I've only added Experimental and Advanced tech lines at this point. I '''think''' the Year Introduction line is the same as prototype year.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 06:58, 13 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:'''Year Introduced''' is the game year that the weapon actually entered production, '''Year Available''' would be the year that a Prototype or Production Weapon was made available to the open market, '''Prototype Date''' would be the date that the Prototype first entered testing, '''Prototype Abandoned''' would be if a program was canceled like the original silver bullet gauss , '''Year Extinction''' would be if something went LosTech, '''Year Reintroduced''' would be if something was put back into production --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 22:45, 17 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:the year that something was designated for a rules level would be a Real World year, and not relevant to the game information --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 22:35, 17 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Aerospace Range field ==<br />
<br />
I was updating the Clan Rotary AC/5 information and saw that the infobox lacked an Aerospace Range entry. I've added one, but I want to find out if this is something that is useful or did we decide not to include that information at some point and I'm just ignorant of the discussion. Anyone have a clue? Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 05:31, 8 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:ISTR Aerospace Range is the same as the BattleTech range for most weapons, that is the map *scale* changes but the map *range* does not, is this still correct?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 08:42, 14 August 2014 (PDT)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Template_talk:InfoBoxWeapon&diff=367542Template talk:InfoBoxWeapon2014-08-18T05:35:55Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Technology Advancement */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Technology Advancement==<br />
Now that TRO:Prototypes and TRO:3145 are advancing the technology class of weaponry, I think it might make sense to add new rows to the infobox. These rows would be optional, and show the year a weapon was designated Experimental, Advanced. and Tournament-legal. In my opinion this would be more effective than trying to add it into the text.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 12:04, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:This is a great idea.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 12:06, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::I think that's a good idea. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 12:27, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:::I support this idea.--[[User:Raven 2C|Raven 2C]] ([[User talk:Raven 2C|talk]]) 15:15, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::::OK. Infobox has been updated. You can see it in action on the [[Silver Bullet Gauss Rifle]] page. If you have any suggestions, let me know.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 06:56, 13 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::::I've only added Experimental and Advanced tech lines at this point. I '''think''' the Year Introduction line is the same as prototype year.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 06:58, 13 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:'''Year Introduced''' is the game year that the weapon actually entered production, '''Prototype Date''' would be the date that the Prototype first entered testing, '''Prototype Abandoned''' would be if a program was canceled like the original silver bullet gauss , '''Production Stopped''' would be if something went LosTech, '''Production Resumed''' would be if something was put back into production --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 22:35, 17 August 2014 (PDT) <br />
:the year that something was designated for a rules level would be a Real World year, and not relevant to the game information --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 22:35, 17 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Aerospace Range field ==<br />
<br />
I was updating the Clan Rotary AC/5 information and saw that the infobox lacked an Aerospace Range entry. I've added one, but I want to find out if this is something that is useful or did we decide not to include that information at some point and I'm just ignorant of the discussion. Anyone have a clue? Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 05:31, 8 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:ISTR Aerospace Range is the same as the BattleTech range for most weapons, that is the map *scale* changes but the map *range* does not, is this still correct?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 08:42, 14 August 2014 (PDT)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Template_talk:InfoBoxWeapon&diff=367541Template talk:InfoBoxWeapon2014-08-18T05:35:21Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Technology Advancement */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Technology Advancement==<br />
Now that TRO:Prototypes and TRO:3145 are advancing the technology class of weaponry, I think it might make sense to add new rows to the infobox. These rows would be optional, and show the year a weapon was designated Experimental, Advanced. and Tournament-legal. In my opinion this would be more effective than trying to add it into the text.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 12:04, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:This is a great idea.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 12:06, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::I think that's a good idea. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 12:27, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:::I support this idea.--[[User:Raven 2C|Raven 2C]] ([[User talk:Raven 2C|talk]]) 15:15, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::::OK. Infobox has been updated. You can see it in action on the [[Silver Bullet Gauss Rifle]] page. If you have any suggestions, let me know.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 06:56, 13 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::::I've only added Experimental and Advanced tech lines at this point. I '''think''' the Year Introduction line is the same as prototype year.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 06:58, 13 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:'''Year Introduced''' is the game year that the weapon actually entered production, '''Prototype Date''' would be the date that the Prototype first entered testing, '''Prototype Abandoned''' would be if a program was canceled like the original silver bullet gauss , '''Production Stopped''' would be if something went LosTech, '''Production Resumed''' would be if something was put back into production <br />
:the year that something was designated for a rules level would be a Real World year, and not relevant to the game information --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 22:35, 17 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Aerospace Range field ==<br />
<br />
I was updating the Clan Rotary AC/5 information and saw that the infobox lacked an Aerospace Range entry. I've added one, but I want to find out if this is something that is useful or did we decide not to include that information at some point and I'm just ignorant of the discussion. Anyone have a clue? Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 05:31, 8 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:ISTR Aerospace Range is the same as the BattleTech range for most weapons, that is the map *scale* changes but the map *range* does not, is this still correct?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 08:42, 14 August 2014 (PDT)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Silver_Bullet_Gauss_Rifle&diff=367540Talk:Silver Bullet Gauss Rifle2014-08-18T05:24:01Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Rules Level */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{WikiProject Technology|tr=new}}<br />
== Cluster Damage? ==<br />
<br />
"The weapon functions like an "LB-15X" in game play, using the 15 column of the missile hits table and dividing its damage into five point groups." I was under the impression, and Megamek agrees with me, that each individual pellet has its own location roll. TBH the SBGR would be a terrible weapon if it clustered into fives like a missile system.{{Unsigned|name}}<br />
: Agreed - that is my understanding as well. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 04:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Its both right and wrong. The statement is a corruption of the ''Unbound'' rules for the weapon, to directly quote that book - "A Silver Bullet round inflicts damage in the same manner as an LRM-15. The damage roll is broken up into 5-point increments when determining location." However ''Tactical Operations'' version uses the present cluster rules just like LB-X Autocannons, where you roll to hit for each "pellet". [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 08:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::: Noted. If someone would like to post the Unbound Rules in the "Notes" section, that's cool. I'm correcting the text as written. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 00:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules Level ==<br />
<br />
The Silver Bullet Gauss has been Level 3 or Experimental rules from its introduction, not certain what the 3051 & 3080 dates mean. was the 3080 date when it dropped from experimental rules to Advanced Rules? --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 22:24, 17 August 2014 (PDT)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Template_talk:InfoBoxWeapon&diff=367250Template talk:InfoBoxWeapon2014-08-14T15:42:39Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Aerospace Range field */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Technology Advancement==<br />
Now that TRO:Prototypes and TRO:3145 are advancing the technology class of weaponry, I think it might make sense to add new rows to the infobox. These rows would be optional, and show the year a weapon was designated Experimental, Advanced. and Tournament-legal. In my opinion this would be more effective than trying to add it into the text.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 12:04, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:This is a great idea.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 12:06, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::I think that's a good idea. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 12:27, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
:::I support this idea.--[[User:Raven 2C|Raven 2C]] ([[User talk:Raven 2C|talk]]) 15:15, 10 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::::OK. Infobox has been updated. You can see it in action on the [[Silver Bullet Gauss Rifle]] page. If you have any suggestions, let me know.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 06:56, 13 January 2014 (PST)<br />
::::I've only added Experimental and Advanced tech lines at this point. I '''think''' the Year Introduction line is the same as prototype year.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 06:58, 13 January 2014 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Aerospace Range field ==<br />
<br />
I was updating the Clan Rotary AC/5 information and saw that the infobox lacked an Aerospace Range entry. I've added one, but I want to find out if this is something that is useful or did we decide not to include that information at some point and I'm just ignorant of the discussion. Anyone have a clue? Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 05:31, 8 August 2014 (PDT)<br />
:ISTR Aerospace Range is the same as the BattleTech range for most weapons, that is the map *scale* changes but the map *range* does not, is this still correct?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] ([[User talk:PerkinsC|talk]]) 08:42, 14 August 2014 (PDT)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Targeting-tracking_system&diff=180176Targeting-tracking system2011-05-05T21:43:46Z<p>PerkinsC: /* unsorted */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{cleanup}}<br />
==Description==<br />
The '''Targeting-Tracking System''' ('''TTS'''), also known as '''Advanced Fire Control system''' ('''AFCS''') , is the system that controls weapons fire from a combat unit. Introduced circa [[2439]]<ref>''TechManual'', p. 217</ref>, all combat units ([[:Category:BattleMechs|BattleMechs]], [[:Category:Combat Vehicles|Combat Vehicles]], [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|AeroSpace Fighters]], [[:Category:Battle Armor|Battle Armor]], etc.) include an [[Advanced Fire Control System|Advanced Fire Control system]] as part of their basic cockpit/command center.<br />
<br />
As [[:Category:Industrial Mechs|Industrial Mechs]] and [[:Category:Support Vehicles|Support Vehicles]] are designed primarily for non-combat use, they usually do not include any Fire Control system. These units can be equipped with an Advanced Fire Control/TTS system however. For IndustrialMechs this is a simple swap operation, but Support Vehicles use a version that isn't as compact. The Advanced Fire Control system for Support Vehicles weighs ten percent of the total of all the heavy (non-infantry) weapons mounted on the vehicle. (An Advanced Fire Control system for a Support Vehicle mounting only a [[Gauss Rifle]] would weigh 1.5 tons.)<ref>''TechManual'', p. 218</ref> A support vehicle may use a less effective form of fire control (known as [[Basic Fire Control System|Basic Fire Control system]]) that weighs five percent of the total of all non-infantry weapons mounted on the vehicle.<ref>''TechManual'', p. 217</ref> This lighter system isn't as capable as the [[Advanced Fire Control System|Advanced Fire Control system]]. ''(See '''Game Notes''' for restrictions.)''<br />
<br />
The [[Advanced Fire Control system|Advanced Fire Control System]] or [[Targeting and Tracking System]] allows the unit carrying it to use [[Artemis IV FCS]], [[Artemis V FCS]], [[Targeting Computers]], [[C3|Command, Control and Communications (C<sup>3</sup>) systems]], [[:Category:Active Probes|Active Probes]].<ref>''TechManual'', p. 218</ref>. These Systems cannot be mounted on systems without a fire control system or with a [[Basic Fire Control System|Basic Fire Control system]] or ('''BFCS''').<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFFFE0; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
===Game Notes===<br />
[[Targeting and Tracking Systems]] are called '''Advanced Fire Control Computers''' by the [[Support Vehicles|Support Vehicle]] Rules, and in the [[MechWarrior, Third Edition|MechWarrior, Third Edition RPG]] give a +2 Gunnery skill modifier bonus to the die roll.<br />
<br />
The [[BattleTech]] Rules call this system '''Sensors''' and assume the presence and functionality of this piece of equipment so no bonus is gained. In fact, a +2 Gunnery skill penalty takes effect if either of the criticals are marked off. When both criticals are marked off a BattleMech can no longer fire.<br />
<br />
In BattleTech play, a Support Vehicle mounting Advanced Fire Control has no to-hit modifiers. A Support Vehicle using a Basic Fire Control System receives a +1 to-hit penalty. A Support Vehicle that lacks any fire control system receives a +2 to-hit penalty.<ref>''Total Warfare'', p. 206</ref><br />
</div><br />
<br />
==Manufacturing==<br />
'''Targeting and Tracking Systems''', '''Advanced Fire Control Systems''', and '''Basic Fire Control Systems''' are manufactured on the following planets:<br />
<br />
===A===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Able-Seven Sensor Suit<br />
| [[Strato Domingo]]<br />
| [[Auxiliary Production Site 4]]<br />
| <br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|Able-7 Sensor Suite<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Acquisition System<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Angst Clear View 2A<br />
| [[Hesperus II]]<br />
| [[Doering Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Angst Clear View Multitask <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
| <br />
| GOL-6H '''[[Goliath]]''' <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Apple Churchill 2000<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| <br />
| <br />
| [[Phoenix Hawk#PXH-5L|PXH-5L Phoenix Hawk]] <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| AntiAir Flak Systems-1<br />
| [[Kirklin]]<br />
| [[Kallon Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]] w/[[Anti-Aircraft Targeting and Tracking System|AA]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| AntiAir Flak Systems-1<br />
| [[Nanking]]<br />
| [[Kallon Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]w/[[Anti-Aircraft Targeting and Tracking System|AA]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| AntiAir Flak Systems-1<br />
| [[Loyalty]]<br />
| [[Kallon Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]w/[[Anti-Aircraft Targeting and Tracking System|AA]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Apple Churchill 2000<br />
| [[Capella]]<br />
| [[Ceres Metals Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===B===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Beagle Active Probe<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| <br />
| <br />
| ''[[Men Shen]]'' ([[Men Shen#Alternate Configurations|E]] & [[Men Shen#Alternate Configurations|F]])<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Big Cat Mk. II<br />
| [[Barcella]]<br />
| [[Barcella Alpha]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Blade 12 with Beagle Active Prove and C3 slave<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| <br />
| <br />
| [[Beowulf#Variants|BEO-14 ''Beowulf'']]<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Blankenburg Trooper<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Blankenburg Technologies]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| BlazeFire Sightlock<br />
| [[Addicks]]<br />
| [[Johnston Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| BlindFire<br />
| [[Arc-Royal]]<br />
| [[TharHes Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Brim CT-37<br />
| [[Arcadia]]<br />
| [[Arcadia BattleMech Plant CM-T4]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Build 2 Cat<br />
| [[Irece]]<br />
| [[Barcella Beta]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Build 2 CAT TTS with Targeting Computer<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| <br />
| <br />
| NOVA CAT (F & G)<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Build 3 Cat <br />
| [[Irece]]<br />
| [[Barcella Beta]] <br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Build 3 CAT TTS <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| <br />
| <br />
| [[Shadow Hawk IIC#5|Shadow Hawk IIC 5]] <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===C===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| C-Apple Churchill<br />
| [[Capella]]<br />
| [[Ceres Metals Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| C-Apple Churchill<br />
| [[St. Ives]]<br />
| [[Ceres Metals Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Cat's Eyes 5<br />
| [[Hachiman]]<br />
| [[Tanadi Computers]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Cat's Eye MD6<br />
| [[Arcadia]]<br />
| [[Arcadia BattleMech Plant CM-03]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Ceres Bullseye<br />
| [[Indicass]]<br />
| [[Ceres Metals Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Ceres-Maladev 3<br />
| [[Menke]]<br />
| [[Ceres Metals Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Chichester ASR 26<br />
| [[Altair]]<br />
| [[Kurita Combine Munitions Corporation]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Cirxese RockeCheck<br />
| [[Betelgeuse]]<br />
| [[Aldis Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Cirxese RockeCheck<br />
| [[New Samarkand]]<br />
| [[New Samarkand Metals]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Cirxese RockeCheck<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Aldis Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Cirxese RockeCheck 2<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Aldis Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| CommPhase Unit<br />
| [[Victoria]]<br />
| [[Trellis Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| CommPhase Unit<br />
| [[Keystone]]<br />
| [[Exeter Organization]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| CommPhase Unit<br />
| [[Pandora]]<br />
| [[Red Devil Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| ComStar Test-2<br />
| [[Victoria]]<br />
| [[Trellis Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| ComStar Test-2<br />
| [[New Earth]]<br />
| [[New Earth Trading Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Corean B-Tech<br />
| [[New Avalon]]<br />
| [[Corean Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Corean B-Tech<br />
| [[Stewart]]<br />
| [[Corean Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Corean CalcMaster<br />
| [[Stewart]]<br />
| [[Corean Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Cyclops 9<br />
| [[Skye]]<br />
| [[Cyclops Incorporated]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Cyclops Multi-Tasker 10<br />
| [[Skye]]<br />
| [[Cyclops Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Coordination Link<br />
| [[Nanking]]<br />
| [[Kallon Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Coordination Link<br />
| [[Shiro III]]<br />
| [[Grumman Amalgamated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===D===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dalban HiRez<br />
| [[Macintosh]]<br />
| [[Apple Computers Interstellar]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dalban HiRez<br />
| [[Carlisle]]<br />
| [[Bergan Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dalban HiRez II<br />
| [[Macintosh]]<br />
| [[Apple Computers Interstellar]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dalban HiRez II<br />
| [[Carlisle]]<br />
| [[Bergan Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| DeadEye Superlock 18K <br />
| [[Tamaron]]<br />
| [[Ashton ('Mech) Production Complex]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Digital Scanlok 347<br />
| [[Tharkad]]<br />
| [[TharHes Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dwyerson Mark XI<br />
| [[Capella]]<br />
| [[Ceres Metals Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dwyerson Mark XI<br />
| [[Texlos]]<br />
| [[Texlos Miltronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dwyerson Mark XII<br />
| [[Capella]]<br />
| [[Ceres Metals Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dwyerson Mark XII<br />
| [[Texlos]]<br />
| [[Texlos Miltronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec 990<br />
| [[Grand Base]]<br />
| [[Earthwerks Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec 990<br />
| [[Carbonis]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec 990<br />
| [[Illiushin]]<br />
| [[Vandenberg Mechanized Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec 1122<br />
| [[Carbonis]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec 2180<br />
| [[Carbonis]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec 2780<br />
| [[Carbonis]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec Special<br />
| [[Grand Base]]<br />
| [[Earthwerks Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===E===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| | Eagle Eye 400 XX<br />
| [[Hachiman]]<br />
| [[Tanadi Computers]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|Eagle Eye 410 XX<br />
| [[Hachiman]]<br />
| [[Tanadi Computers]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|Eagle Eye SY10-10<br />
| [[Hachiman]]<br />
| [[Tanadi Computers]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|Evil Eye<br />
| [[Skye]]<br />
| [[Cyclops Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===F===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Federated Hunter<br />
| [[New Avalon]]<br />
| [[Achernar BattleMechs]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Federated Hunter Mark II<br />
| [[New Avalon]]<br />
| [[Achernar BattleMechs]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| FireScan with IndirecTrack<br />
| [[Ares]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| FireScan with IndirecTrack<br />
| [[Layover]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| FireScan with IndirecTrack<br />
| [[Oliver]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| FireScan with IndirecTrack<br />
| [[Gallery]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| FireScan with IndirecTrack<br />
| [[Mitchella]]<br />
| [[United Outworlders Corporation]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| FireScan with IndirecTrack<br />
| [[Sterope]]<br />
| [[Taurus Territorial Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===G===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Gamma-Five Sensor Package <br />
| [[Strato Domingo]]<br />
| [[Auxiliary Production Site 4]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret A6<br />
| [[Dalton]]<br />
| [[Garret SatComm]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret A99<br />
| [[Dalton]]<br />
| [[Garret SatComm]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret D2j<br />
| [[Quentin]]<br />
| [[Independence Weaponry]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret D2j<br />
| [[Mendham]]<br />
| [[Mendham Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret D2j<br />
| [[Dalton]]<br />
| [[Garret SatComm]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret D2j<br />
| [[Pandora]]<br />
| [[Red Devil Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret D5j<br />
| [[Quentin]]<br />
| [[Independence Weaponry]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret E2b<br />
| [[Mendham]]<br />
| [[Mendham Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret E5a<br />
| [[Mendham]]<br />
| [[Mendham Electronics]]<br />
| |<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret Fib<br />
| [[Mendham]]<br />
| [[Mendham Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret O2j<br />
| [[Mendham]]<br />
| [[Mendham Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret T11b<br />
| [[Quentin]]<br />
| [[Independence Weaponry]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret T11b<br />
| [[Dalton]]<br />
| [[Garret SatComm]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret T12A<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Krupp Armament Works]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Garret T15AJ<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Krupp Armament Works]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| GPT Multi-Track<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Krupp Armament Works]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===H===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Hartford S2000A<br />
| [[Keystone]]<br />
| [[Earthwerks Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|IS]]<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| HartfordCo XKZ 1<br />
| [[Pandora]]<br />
| [[Red Devil Industries]]<br />
|<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|IS]]<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| HawkEye J360<br />
| [[Huntress]]<br />
| [[Phan Industrial Complex]]<br />
|<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|Clan]]<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Hunter 62b<br />
| [[Strana Mechty]]<br />
| [[Bear's Den]]<br />
|<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|Clan]]<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Hermes CT-42 Mk. II <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| <br />
| <br />
| [[Marauder IIC#5|Marauder IIC 5]]<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|Clan]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Hermes CT-42 Mk II <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| <br />
| <br />
| ''[[Blood Asp]]'' ([[Blood Asp#Alternate Configurations|F]] & [[Blood Asp#Alternate Configurations|G]])<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Hermes CT-44 <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| <br />
|<br />
| [[Warhammer IIC#5|Warhammer IIC 5]] <br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===I===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| IMB 5000<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| IMB Multitrac 5000<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| IMB SYS 3600<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| IMB SYS 3740<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Irian 511<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| IsBM Lantirn<br />
| [[Belladonna]]<br />
| [[Cal-Boeing of Dorwinion]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===J===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| J-Peep Farsight<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Mitchell Vehicles]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===K===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Kallon Lock-On<br />
| [[Kirklin]]<br />
| [[Kallon Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| KBC Starsight QTA1<br />
| [[New Earth]]<br />
| [[Yankee Weapons Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===L===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Lockheed-CBM TarSet 65<br />
| [[Donegal]]<br />
| [[Lockheed-CBM Corporation]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===M===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Magestrix Delta<br />
| [[Dunianshire]]<br />
| [[Canopus Industries Alpha]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Magestrix Gamma<br />
| [[Dunianshire]]<br />
| [[Canopus Industries Alpha]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Matabushi Sentinel<br />
| [[Luthien]]<br />
| [[Matabushi Computing Equipment]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Matabushi Sentinel<br />
| [[Quentin]]<br />
| [[Independence Weaponry]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Maxell TA50<br />
| [[Andurien]]<br />
| [[Bergan Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Maxell TA50<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[Bergan Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Maxell TA50<br />
| [[Kendall]]<br />
| [[Bergan Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Maxell TA50<br />
| [[Indicass]]<br />
| [[Ceres Metals Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Maxell TA55<br />
| [[Andurien]]<br />
| [[Bergan Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Maxell TA55<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[Bergan Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===N===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| N&D Handsfree<br />
| [[Furillo]]<br />
| [[N&D]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| N&D Longreach ReTAC-3<br />
| [[Furillo]]<br />
| [[N&D]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Nirasaki VersaTrack-F<br />
| [[Nirasaki]]<br />
| [[Nirasaki Computers Collective]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Nirasaki VersaTrack-L<br />
| [[Nirasaki]]<br />
| [[Nirasaki Computers Collective]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Nirasaki VersaTrack-R<br />
| [[Nirasaki]]<br />
| [[Nirasaki Computers Collective]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===O===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Octagon Tartrac - System C<br />
| [[Macintosh]]<br />
| [[Apple Computers Interstellar]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Octagon Tartrac - System C<br />
| [[Carbonis]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Octagon Tartrac - System C<br />
| [[Pinard]]<br />
| [[Pinard-Dicolais Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Omicron VII<br />
| [[Betelgeuse]]<br />
| [[Aldis Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Omicron VII<br />
| [[New Samarkand]]<br />
| [[New Samarkand Metals]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Omicron VII<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Aldis Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Omicron IX<br />
| [[Betelgeuse]]<br />
| [[Aldis Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Omicron IX<br />
| [[New Samarkand]]<br />
| [[New Samarkand Metals]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Omicron IX<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Aldis Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Omicron TrackerKeeper<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| OmniLink<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 911<br />
| [[Victoria]]<br />
| [[Trellis Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 911<br />
| [[New Kyoto]]<br />
| [[Doering Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 911<br />
| [[Canopus IV]]<br />
| [[Majesty Metals and Manufacturing]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 911<br />
| [[Alpheratz]]<br />
| [[Arenthir Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 911<br />
| [[Brisbane]]<br />
| [[O-P Computer Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 911<br />
| [[Alphard]]<br />
| [[Marian Arms Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 1078<br />
| [[Campertown]]<br />
| [[Sacrado Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 1500 ARB<br />
| [[New Kyoto]]<br />
| [[Doering Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 1500 ARB<br />
| [[Brisbane]]<br />
| [[O-P Computer Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 2000A<br />
| [[Dunianshire]]<br />
| [[Majesty Metals and Manufacturing]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 2000JSA<br />
| [[New Kyoto]]<br />
| [[Doering Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 2000JSA<br />
| [[Alpheratz]]<br />
| [[Arenthir Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 2000JSA<br />
| [[Brisbane]]<br />
| [[O-P Computer Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 2500TGFD<br />
| [[New Avalon]]<br />
| [[Lycomb-Davion IntroTech]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 2500TGFD<br />
| [[Brisbane]]<br />
| [[O-P Computer Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 3000<br />
| [[New Kyoto]]<br />
| [[Doering Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 3000<br />
| [[Dunianshire]]<br />
| [[Majesty Metals and Manufacturing]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 3000<br />
| [[Alpheratz]]<br />
| [[Arenthir Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 3000<br />
| [[Brisbane]]<br />
| [[O-P Computer Electronics]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 3500TGL<br />
| [[Hun Ho]]<br />
| [[LexaTech Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P 3500TGL<br />
| [[Alpheratz]]<br />
| [[Arenthir Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P FiberFeed 201<br />
| [[Campertown]]<br />
| [[Sacrado Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P PulseTrack III<br />
| [[Hun Ho]]<br />
| [[LexaTech Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P Scanoptics 400BP<br />
| [[Campertown]]<br />
| [[Sacrado Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| O-P Scanoptics 5<br />
| [[Campertown]]<br />
| [[Sacrado Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| OptiSight-12<br />
| [[Ares]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| OptiSight-12<br />
| [[Layover]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| OptiSight-12<br />
| [[Kalidasa]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| OptiSight-12<br />
| [[Gallery]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| OptiTrack Techniques<br />
| [[Ares]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| OptiTrack Techniques<br />
| [[Layover]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| OptiTrack Techniques<br />
| [[Kalidasa]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| OptiTrack Techniques<br />
| [[Gallery]]<br />
| [[Quikscell Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===P===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| PS-1-12<br />
| [[Sian]]<br />
| [[Saroyan Special Projects]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Q===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===R===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Radcom T5<br />
| [[Texlos]]<br />
| [[Texlos Miltronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Radcom T11<br />
| [[Sian]]<br />
| [[Saroyan Special Projects]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Radcom T11<br />
| [[Dover]]<br />
| [[Wakazashi Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Radcom TXX<br />
| [[Sian]]<br />
| [[Saroyan Special Projects]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Rander Pinpoint-HY<br />
| [[Schedar]]<br />
| [[Rander Communications Equipment Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Rander Pinpoint-HY<br />
| [[Alarion]]<br />
| [[Bergan Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Rander TA4<br />
| [[Schedar]]<br />
| [[Rander Communications Equipment Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Rander TA5<br />
| [[Schedar]]<br />
| [[Rander Communications Equipment Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Rander TA5<br />
| [[Alarion]]<br />
| [[Bergan Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Rander TA800<br />
| [[Schedar]]<br />
| [[Rander Communications Equipment Incorporated]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Rander TA900<br />
| [[Schedar]]<br />
| [[Rander Communications Equipment Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Rander TA900<br />
| [[Alarion]]<br />
| [[Bergan Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| RCA Instatrac Mark X<br />
| [[Carbonis]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| RCA Instatrac Mark X<br />
| [[Furillo]]<br />
| [[N&D]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| RCA Instatrac Mark X<br />
| [[Pinard]]<br />
| [[Pinard-Dicolais Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| RCA Instatrac Mark XI<br />
| [[Chatham]]<br />
| [[Wakazashi Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| RCA Instatrac Mark XII<br />
| [[Carbonis]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| RCA Instatrac Mark XII<br />
| [[Furillo]]<br />
| [[N&D]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| RCA Instatrac Mark XII<br />
| [[Pinard]]<br />
| [[Pinard-Dicolais Electronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Ringo Plant 88<br />
| [[Nirasaki]]<br />
| [[New Age Systems Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===S===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Scarborough Assault-1<br />
| [[Al Na'ir]]<br />
| [[Scarborough Manufacturers]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Scarborough Assault-1<br />
| [[Scarborough]]<br />
| [[Scarborough Limited]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Scarborough Tracky-1<br />
| [[Al Na'ir]]<br />
| [[Scarborough Manufacturers]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Scarborough Tracky-1<br />
| [[Scarborough]]<br />
| [[Scarborough Limited]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Scarborough Tracky-2<br />
| [[Al Na'ir]]<br />
| [[Scarborough Manufacturers]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Scarborough Tracky-2<br />
| [[Scarborough]]<br />
| [[Scarborough Limited]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Scarborough Tracky-3<br />
| [[Al Na'ir]]<br />
| [[Scarborough Manufacturers]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Scope Paint<br />
| [[Nirasaki]]<br />
| [[New Age Systems Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Series III GDS<br />
| [[Arcadia]]<br />
| [[Arcadia BattleMech Plant CM-03]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Series XXX MultiTrack<br />
| [[Babylon]]<br />
| [[Babylon MechWorks V]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Series XXVIII IWS <br />
| [[Irece]]<br />
| [[Barcella Beta]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Starlight Seeker LX-4K<br />
| [[Son Hoa]]<br />
| [[StarCorp Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Starlight Seeker LX-4K<br />
| [[Texlos]]<br />
| [[Texlos Miltronics]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Sync Tracker 39-42071<br />
| [[New Avalon]]<br />
| [[Corean Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| SynCom VAX<br />
| [[Trellisane]]<br />
| [[Grumman Amalgamated]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===T===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargetTrack<br />
| [[Skye]]<br />
| [[Cyclops Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Targeting Computer<br />
| [[Furillo]]<br />
| [[N&D]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrack 700<br />
| [[Ingersoll]]<br />
| [[Bulldog Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrack 700<br />
| [[Proserpina]]<br />
| [[Bulldog Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrack 717<br />
| [[Ingersoll]]<br />
| [[Bulldog Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrack 717<br />
| [[Proserpina]]<br />
| [[Bulldog Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrack 717<br />
| [[Panpour]]<br />
| [[Jalastar Aerospace]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrack 717<br />
| [[New Earth]]<br />
| [[New Earth Trading Company]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tek Tru-Trak<br />
| [[Macintosh]]<br />
| [[Apple Computers Interstellar]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tek Tru-Trak<br />
| [[Arc-Royal]]<br />
| [[Winston-CherrySeed Consolidated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes AGART<br />
| [[Tharkad]]<br />
| [[TharHes Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Alpha-2a<br />
| [[Tharkad]]<br />
| [[TharHes Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-5B<br />
| [[Tharkad]]<br />
| [[TharHes Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-7<br />
| [[Tharkad]]<br />
| [[TharHes Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-7i<br />
| [[Tharkad]]<br />
| [[TharHes Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-8a<br />
| [[Tharkad]]<br />
| [[TharHes Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Mars-1<br />
| [[Tharkad]]<br />
| [[TharHes Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Mars-5<br />
| [[Tharkad]]<br />
| [[TharHes Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TracTex Alpha-1<br />
| [[Perdition]]<br />
| [[Alphard Trading Corporation]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRSS Eagle Eye<br />
| [[Tematagi]]<br />
| [[Nimakachi Fusion Products Limited]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II <br />
| [[Tamaron]]<br />
| [[Ashton ('Mech) Production Complex]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II<br />
| [[Irece]]<br />
| [[Barcella Beta]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II-beta<br />
| [[Tamaron]]<br />
| [[Ashton ('Mech) Production Complex]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===U===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===V===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Valiant 2<br />
| [[Strana Mechty]]<br />
| [[Bear's Den]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Version Gamma-V<br />
| [[Arcadia]]<br />
| [[Arcadia BattleMech Plant CM-T15]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Virtutrak S1<br />
| [[Betelgeuse]]<br />
| [[Aldis Industries]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===W===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Agressor<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Agressor<br />
| [[Shiro III]]<br />
| [[Irian BattleMechs Unlimited]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Agressor Type 5<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Agressor Type 8<br />
| [[Irian]]<br />
| [[IMB Systems]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Watchdog W100<br />
| [[Wallis]]<br />
| [[Ronin Incorporated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Winston Coral Snake<br />
| [[Arc-Royal]]<br />
| [[Winston-CherrySeed Consolidated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Winston Sidewinder<br />
| [[Arc-Royal]]<br />
| [[Winston-CherrySeed Consolidated]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wunderland XXV-2 Series<br />
| [[Ozawa]]<br />
|<br />
| [[Wakazashi Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wunderland XXXI-1 Series<br />
| [[Ozawa]]<br />
| [[Wakazashi Enterprises]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===X===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Y===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Z===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|} <br />
<br />
===unsorted===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
| C-12 Mk III<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|HIGHLANDER IIC 2 <br />
|[[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
| C-Apple Churchill<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|TSG-9C TI TS’ANG<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
| Cat’s Eyes 5<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|TSH-8S TAI-SHO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
| Cat’s Eyes 5<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|SJA-8H SHUGENJA<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
| Cat’s Eyes 5<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|KBO-7B KABUTO<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
| Ceres Bullseye <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|OSR-5W Ostroc <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
| Corean B-Tech<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|SRC-6C SIROCCO<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Corean CalcMaster <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|LCT-6M Locust <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Cyclops 9b with Targeting Computer<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|BTZ-4F BLITZKRIEG<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Cyclops Multi-Tasker 10 <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
| BattleMaster BLR-10S <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dalban Hi-Rez with TAG <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|MAD-9M2 Marauder <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| DLK Type Phased Array Sensor System and TAG<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|BKW-9R BLACK WATCH<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dragwell Hi-Rez IV <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|MAD-4K Marauder II <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dtrac Suite 4a (TC) <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|Phoenix Hawk IIC 6 <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec 128<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|EGL-3M EAGLE<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec 990 T&T<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|D9-G10 DUAN GUNG<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec MissileTrac X<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|YMN-10-OR YEOMAN<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Dynatec Special T&T with C-Apple Churchill Beagle Probe<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|JN-9CC Jinggau<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Eagle Eye B-18 with C3 slave<ref>Milspecs</ref>|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|BSN-5KC BISHAMON<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== ==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
| Federated Hunter Type 3<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|SNT-W5 SENTRY<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter with Targeting Computer<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Stalker with Targeting Module <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|OTL-8D Ostsol <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Garret a99 with Artemis IV FCS<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|TYM-1C TOYAMA<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j with Artemis IV <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|Shadow Hawk SHD-11CS <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D5j with Artemis IV FCS <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|CRD-7W Crusader <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Garret F22C <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|WHM-8K Warhammer<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Garret GRNDTRK9 <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|Scorpion SCP-12K <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Garret T11fc<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|JM6-D4 JAGERMECH III<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Garrett D2j <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|RFL-6D Rifleman <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|GC MultiTrac System Type 6 with Artemis IV FCS<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|VKG-3A VIKING<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GEG Pattern 491/6 with Targeting Computer<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|MATADOR 2<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HCFA 3047 1.5<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|SNOW FOX 3| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HT9 TTS<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|Urbanmech IIC| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hunter (3) Dedicated TTS with Targeting Computer<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|PACK HUNTER 4| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Instatrac Mark XIII<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|BCN-4W BUCCANEER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Light TAG<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|SATYR 4 Clan (Protomech)<br />
|-<br />
|Light TAG<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|SIREN 4&5 Clan (Protomech)<br />
|-<br />
|Martin-Quarry Tarsys XLR 2.2 with Artemis IV FCS <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|LGB-13C Longbow | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mk. CXC-4 <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|Rifleman IIC 5 | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 911 <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|Y-H11G YU HUANG| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Octagon Tartrac System C<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|MHL-6MC MARSHAL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RadCom TXXI <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|Wasp WSP-7MAF | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Marc X <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| GRF-5K Griffin | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XII with Artemis IV <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|ARC-7S Archer | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mk VI <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|Ursus | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scope 2000<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|INI-04 INITIATE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series I GDS<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|WYVERN IIC 2<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Series JFVIII KITT<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|COUGAR (F & G)<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI Integrated TTS with Light TAG<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI TTS<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|PREDATOR 2<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Series XI KITT with Targeting Computer<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|GUILLOTINE IIC 2<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Series XXXII Mulitrack with Targeting Computer<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|STALKING SPIDER 3<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Sloane 220 Lockover System<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|CLINT IIC 2<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Sync Tracker (40-TC) <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|Valkyrie VLK-QD2 <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Sync-Tracker <ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|WVR-9M Wolverine <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Sync-Tracker (55-42071)<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|GRM - GARM| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|TharHes Ares LM with Artemis IV FCS<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|CBR-03 Cobra<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|TharHes Ares-8a with Artemis IV FCS<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|BGS-7S BARGHEST<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|TRTTS Mark II with Active Probe and Targeting Computer<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|FIRE SCORPION 3<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|TRTTS Mk II CWS<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|CANIS 2<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|TRTTS-X Mk 1<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Unknown<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|GORGON 4 Clan (Protomech)<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Unknown<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|HARPY 4 Clan (Protomech)<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Unknown<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|HYDRA 4 Clan (Protomech)<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Unknown<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|MINOTAUR 4 Clan (Protomech)<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Unknown<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|ROC 4 Clan (Protomech)<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Unknown<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|HAUPTMANN (D & E)<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Version Gamma-VTTS with Targeting Computer<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|CORVIS 2<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Version Kappa-III TTS<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|THUNDER STALLION 3<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Wentland Cyber-Track<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|C-1FC COSSACK<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Wentland Giga-Track<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|HEL-6X HELIOS<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|York Y2-T&T<ref>Milspecs</ref><br />
|STOOPING HAWK (F & G)<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
| Series VI Integrated TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 58</ref><br />
|KU WHEELED ASSAULT TANK<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
| Blade 12 <ref>3085 p. 162</ref><br />
|Karhu<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
| Blankenburg Trooper <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 18</ref><br />
|CHEVALIER LIGHT TANK<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
| FireScan with IndirecTrack <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 26</ref><br />
|HEAVY LRM CARRIER<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|"Hermes" CT-42 Mk. II<ref>TRO Phoenix p. 72</ref><br />
|MARAUDER IIC 2| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|"Hermes" CT-44<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 70</ref><br />
|WARHAMMER IIC 4| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|“Hephaestus” Ct-44<ref>3085 p. 282</ref><br />
|Warhammer IIC 8| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|“Hermes” Ct-42 Mk II <ref>3085 p. 284</ref><br />
|Marauder IIC 7 | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|“Hermes” CT-42 Mk. II <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 182</ref><br />
|BLOOD ASP| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|0/P 2550 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 20</ref><br />
|MANTEUFFEL ATTACK TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|650 RND/ Garret D2j <ref>TRO 3050U p. 198</ref><br />
|crb-27 Crab | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Able-Seven Sensor Suite <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 132</ref><br />
|Clan <br />
|bear cub <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Able-Seven Sensor Suite <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 160</ref><br />
|PIRANHA<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Able-Seven Sensor Suite <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 170</ref><br />
|HA OTOKO<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Able-Seven Sensor Suite <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 130</ref><br />
|Clan <br />
|sM1 tank destroyer <br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Adder Special V8.6 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 120</ref><br />
|Puma <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] <br />
|Clan<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|AL2200 Track-Nav AI System <ref>TRO 3050U p. 166</ref><br />
|Kanga <br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| IS<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Aldis ttS 7<ref>3085 p. 32</ref><br />
|Padilla tube artillery tank<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Alexis Photon Target <ref>TRO 3050U p. 190</ref><br />
|her-3s Hermes <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] <br />
|IS<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Allet-T11<ref>3039 p. 150</ref><br />
|GHR-5H GRASSHOPPER<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Allet-T11 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 80</ref><br />
|Ghr-5J Grasshopper <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] <br />
|IS<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Alshain B4 Series 2 T&T <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 144</ref><br />
|Clan <br />
|ryoken ii <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Accuracy <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 86</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]]<br />
| dfn-3s defiance <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Accuracy<ref>3039 p. 168</ref><br />
|AS7-D ATLAS<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Accuracy<ref>3085 p. 108</ref><br />
|as7-K2 Atlas<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Accuracy <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 100</ref><br />
|FNR-5 FAFNIR<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Clear View 2A<ref>TRO 3055U p. 80</ref><br />
|BRZ-A3 BERSERKER<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Clear View 2A<ref>TRO 3055U p. 126</ref><br />
|PRC-1N PORCUPINE<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Clear View 2A<ref>TRO 3055U p. 172</ref><br />
|CLS-4S COLOSSUS<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Clear View 2A <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 30</ref><br />
|DEMOLISHER II HEAVY TANK<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Clear View 2A <ref>TRO 3050U p. 104</ref><br />
|bnc-5s Banshee <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] <br />
|IS<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Clear View 2AV <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 60</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
|di Morgan assault tank <br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Clear View Multitask<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 50</ref><br />
|COL-4S GOLIATH<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Angst Clear View Multitask<ref>3085 p. 262</ref><br />
|Gol-6H Goliath<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|AntiAir Flak Systems-1<ref>3039 p. 88</ref><br />
|PARTISAN HEAVY TANK<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|AntiAir Flak Systems-1, Octagon Tartrac Systems C <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 152</ref><br />
|LGB-7Q LONGBOW<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Antron 7 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 246</ref><br />
|ahb-443 Ahab (Fighter) <br />
|IS<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Apple Churchill 2000<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 24</ref><br />
|PXH-4L PHOENIX HAWK<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Apple Churchill 2000<ref>3085 p. 236</ref><br />
|PXH-5l PHoenix Hawk<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Apple Churchill 2000 with 442x Target Acquisition Gear <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 60</ref><br />
|SYU-2B SHA YU<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Apple Churchill 2000 with Artemis IV System<ref>TRO 3050U p. 34</ref><br />
|ASN -23 ASSASSIN <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Apple Churchill 2000 with Beagle Probe and 442x TAG <ref>TRO 3050U p. 30</ref><br />
|rVn-3l Raven <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Arc Walker T&T Prime <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 278</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
|crs-6b crossbow <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Army Corporation Type 29K <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 184</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]]<br />
| as7-d-h atlas ii <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|ArTrack 2 TTS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 92</ref><br />
|NAGA<br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|ASQ Mark VII <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 168</ref><br />
|XERXES <br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] <br />
| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Baltex K400 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 174</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] MerkaVa Mk. Viii heaVy tank <br />
|-<br />
|Baltex K580 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 172</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] turhan | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Baltex K590<ref>3085 p. 34</ref><br />
|Bolla stealth tanK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Baltex K590 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 170</ref><br />
|Demon | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|BANDAR 9<ref>3085 p. 114</ref><br />
|sGt-2r Sagittarii | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|BANDAR 9 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 242</ref><br />
|hMr-hd Hammerhead (Fighter) IS<br />
|-<br />
|Bauer-Scope 130Y <ref>TRO 3050U p. 244</ref><br />
|rpr-100 Rapier (Fighter) IS<br />
|-<br />
|Beagle Active Probe <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 56</ref><br />
|CENTIPEDE SCOUT CAR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Beagle Active Probe <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 68</ref><br />
|GALLEON LIGHT TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Beagle Active Probe <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 102</ref><br />
|MS1-O MEN SHEN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Bk-309<ref>3039 p. 112</ref><br />
|JR7-D JENNER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Blade 12<ref>3085 p. 242</ref><br />
|sHd-12c Shadow Hawk | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Blade 12 with Beagle Active Probe and TAG <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 88</ref><br />
|BEO-12 BEOWULF| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|BlazeFir tracker with RangeCheck<ref>3039 p. 58</ref><br />
|GOBLIN MEDIUM TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|BlazeFire Ranging System Type 3 with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 24</ref><br />
|GLORY HEAVY FIRE SUPPORT VEHICLE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|BlazeFire Sight Lock <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 60</ref><br />
|BLIZZARD HOVER TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|BlazeFire Sightlock<ref>3039 p. 230</ref><br />
|CTF-1X CATAPHRACT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|BlazeFire Sightlock <ref>TRO 3050U p. 78</ref><br />
|ctf-3d Cataphract | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|BlazeFire SightLock with Beagle Active Probe <ref>TRO 3050U p. 152</ref><br />
|Beagle | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|BlazeFire Tracker with Range Check <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 58</ref><br />
|CM A-IS CHIMERA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|BlazeFire Tracker with Range Check <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 84</ref><br />
|GOBLIN INFANTRY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|BloodEye 3 2 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 158</ref><br />
|Clan chrysaor (proto mech)<br />
|-<br />
|Boeing 200<ref>3039 p. 176</ref><br />
|BOEING JUMP BOMBER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Brightstar 17 Mk. I <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 220</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] darter scout car | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Brightstar 17 Mk. II <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 8</ref><br />
|MINION ADVANCED TACTICAL VEHICLE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Brightstar 17 Mk. II <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 18</ref><br />
|MORNINGSTAR CITY COMMAND VEHICLE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Brightstar Model III<ref>3085 p. 118</ref><br />
|MnG-8l Mengqin | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Brim CT-37 Mk. XII <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 120</ref><br />
|HELLFIRE| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 1 HLF TTS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 108</ref><br />
|JENNER IIC 19| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 2 CAT TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 170</ref><br />
|SHADOW CAT| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 2 CAT TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 174</ref><br />
|NOVA CAT| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 2 Cat TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 140</ref><br />
|Clan sun cobra | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 2 CAt ttS <ref>3085 p. 164</ref><br />
|Blood Reaper| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 2 JRD TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 60</ref><br />
|ORO HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 2 JRD TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 60</ref><br />
|ORO HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 2 JRD TTS with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 56</ref><br />
|HACHIMAN FIRE SUPPORT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 2 JRD TTS with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 56</ref><br />
|HACHIMAN FIRE SUPPORT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 3 CAt ttS<ref>3085 p. 274</ref><br />
|Griffin iic 6| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 3 CAt ttS<ref>3085 p. 276</ref><br />
|Shadow Hawk iic 7| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 3 CAT TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 174</ref><br />
|NOBORI-NIN| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 3 CAT TTS<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 62</ref><br />
|GRIFFIN IIC 4| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 3 CATTTS<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 64</ref><br />
|SHADOW HAWK IIC 4| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 3Z CAt ttS<ref>3085 p. 160</ref><br />
|Shadow Cat ii| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 4 CAT Advanced TTS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 112</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 4 JVJ ttS<ref>3085 p. 140</ref><br />
|Carnivore assault tank| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 4 JVJ TTS with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 52</ref><br />
|ARES MEDIUM TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 4 JVJ TTS with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 52</ref><br />
|ARES MEDIUM TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build 4 MadCat ttS<ref>3085 p. 170</ref><br />
|Tundra Wolf 4| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Build IX TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 128</ref><br />
|Clan bellona hoVer tank | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Bundesweyth Target Acquisition Gear <ref>TRO 3050U p. 162</ref><br />
|Zephyr | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|C-12 Mk. III with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 184</ref><br />
|HIGHLANDER IIC| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|C-Apple Churchill<ref>3039 p. 130</ref><br />
|VND-1R VINDICATOR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|C-Apple Churchill<ref>3039 p. 224</ref><br />
|RVN-1X RAVEN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|C-Apple Churchill<ref>TRO 3055U p. 58</ref><br />
|THR-1L THUNDER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|C-Apple Churchill <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 228</ref><br />
|PLG-3Z PILLAGER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|C-Apple Churchill <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 106</ref><br />
|TSG-9H TI TS'ANG| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|C-Apple Churchill <ref>TRO 3050U p. 50</ref><br />
|Vnd-3l Vindicator | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s eye 5 with Forward 1 BAP<ref>3085 p. 62</ref><br />
|nX-80 Nyx| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s Eye MD6 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 130</ref><br />
|Vulture | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s Eyes 5<ref>3039 p. 114</ref><br />
|PNT-9R PANTHER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s eyes 5<ref>3085 p. 66</ref><br />
|Pnt-13K Panther| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s Eyes 5 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 74</ref><br />
|KBO-7A KABUTO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s Eyes 5 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 116</ref><br />
|SJA-7D SHUGENJA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s Eyes 5 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 122</ref><br />
|TSH-7S TAI-SHO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s Eyes 5 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 70</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] wgt-1law/sc wight | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s eyes 5 with Artemis IV Module<ref>3085 p. 244</ref><br />
|WVr-9W2 Wolverine| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s Eyes 5 w. Forward 1 and Artemis IV FCS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 18</ref><br />
|HM-1 HITMAN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s Eyes 5 with Artemis IV System<ref>TRO 3055U p. 78</ref><br />
|NG-C3A NAGINATA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s Eyes 5 with Artemis IV System <ref>TRO 3050U p. 28</ref><br />
|pnt-10K Panther | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Cat’s eyes 7<ref>3085 p. 146</ref><br />
|Morrigan| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat's Eyes 5<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 32</ref><br />
|WVR-8K WOLVERINE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cat's Eyes 5 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 78</ref><br />
|NJT-2 NINJA-TO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|CBM TRAK-2 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 284</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] tfn-2a typhoon| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|CCC D5.2J <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 170</ref><br />
|HYDASPES | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|CEC-PM 7 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 152</ref><br />
|Clan cecerops (proto mech)<br />
|-<br />
|Ceres Bullseye<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 34</ref><br />
|OSR-4L OSTROC| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Ceres Bullseye<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 48</ref><br />
|MAD-5L MARAUDER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Ceres Bullseye<ref>3085 p. 246</ref><br />
|osr-5W Ostroc| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Ceres/Maladev 3<ref>3085 p. 36</ref><br />
|Po II Heavy tank| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Ceres/Maladev 3 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 100</ref><br />
|PO HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Chichester ASR 26 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 50</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] hiryo arMored infantry transport | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Chichester ASR-26<ref>3039 p. 198</ref><br />
| | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Chichester ASR-26<ref>3039 p. 236</ref><br />
|S-3 SAI <br />
|-<br />
|Cirxese <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 148</ref><br />
|MTR-5K MAELSTROM| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cirxese Ballista Check with Cirxese RockeCheck<ref>3039 p. 96</ref><br />
|BEHEMOTH HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cirxese BallistaCheck, Cirxese RockeCheck <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 110</ref><br />
|ZHUKOV HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|ComStar Test-2<ref>3039 p. 66</ref><br />
|VEDETTE MEDIUM TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|ComStar Test-2 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 94</ref><br />
|VEDETTE MEDIUM TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Consolidated Type V TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 38</ref><br />
|MORRIGU FIRE SUPPORT VEHICLE| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Consolidated Type V TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 36</ref><br />
|ASSHUR ARTILLERY SPOTTER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Consolidated Type V TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 34</ref><br />
|SHAMASH RECONNAISSANCE VEHICLE| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Consolidated Type V TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 36</ref><br />
|ASSHUR ARTILLERY SPOTTER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Consolidated Type VII TTC with Mark-5 Series Targeting Enhancement Computer <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 64</ref><br />
|ATHENA COMBAT VEHICLE| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Consolidated Type VII TTC with Mark-5 Series Targeting Enhancement Computer <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 64</ref><br />
|ATHENA COMBAT VEHICLE| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Contraband <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 46</ref><br />
|IDT-1 BRIGAND| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech<ref>3039 p. 132</ref><br />
|CN9-A CENTURION| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech<ref>3039 p. 138</ref><br />
|TBT-5N TREBUCHET| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech<ref>3039 p. 299</ref><br />
|GOL-1H GOLIATH| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 10</ref><br />
|MAIN GAUCHE LIGHT SUPPORT TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech<ref>TRO 3055U p. 8</ref><br />
|ALM-7D FIREBALL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech<ref>TRO 3055U p. 152</ref><br />
|SA-RN7 RONIN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 256</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] Mauna kea coMMand Vessel | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech <ref>TRO 3050U p. 60</ref><br />
|tbt-7M Trebuchet | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 130</ref><br />
|SRC-3C SIROCCO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-tech with Artemis IV Fire Control<ref>3085 p. 80</ref><br />
|sKW-2f Shockwave| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech with Artemis IV <ref>TRO 3050U p. 54</ref><br />
|cn9-d Centurion | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Corean B-Tech with TAG <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 16</ref><br />
|MUSKETEER HOVER TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean CaicMaster<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 14</ref><br />
|LCT-5M LOCUST| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean Calcmaster <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 260</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] icr-1s icarus ii | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean CalcMaster<ref>TRO 3055U p. 12</ref><br />
|ZPH-1 TARANTULA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Corean CalcMaster with tAg<ref>3085 p. 226</ref><br />
|lct-5W2 Locust| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Custom (w/ Angle ECM Suite)<ref>TRO 3055U p. 164</ref><br />
|SA-OS2 ONSLAUGHT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops 9<ref>TRO 3055U p. 24</ref><br />
|BZK-F3 HOLLANDER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops 9b <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 94</ref><br />
|BTZ-3F BLITZKRIEG| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops 9b with advanced targeting module<ref>TRO 3055U p. 138</ref><br />
|SVR-5X SILVER FOX| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops- beagle <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 56</ref><br />
|STO-4A STILETTO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops Multi <ref>TRO 3050U p. 12</ref><br />
|coM-5s Commando | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops Multi-tasker 10<ref>3085 p. 264</ref><br />
|BLR-10s Battlemaster| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops Multi-Tasker 10<ref>TRO 3055U p. 10</ref><br />
|DRT-3S DART| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops Multi-Tasker 10 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 212</ref><br />
|LNX-9Q LYNX| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops Multi-Tasker 10 w/ Artemis IV FCS<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 52</ref><br />
|BLR-4S BATTLEMASTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops Special Limited. <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 128</ref><br />
|FS9-O FIRESTARTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Cyclops-Beagle Sensory Probe <ref>TRO 3050U p. 24</ref><br />
|fs9-s Firestarter | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban AQ<ref>3039 p. 128</ref><br />
|BJ-1 BLACKJACK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban AQ <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 202</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] sabaku kaze heavy scout hover tank | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban AQ <ref>TRO 3050U p. 46</ref><br />
|bJ-2 Blackjack | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban Hirez<ref>3039 p. 156</ref><br />
|CGR-1A1 CHARGER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez<ref>TRO 3055U p. 36</ref><br />
|STH-1D STEALTH| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez<ref>TRO 3055U p. 150</ref><br />
|BMB-013 BOMBARD| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban Hi-Rez<ref>3039 p. 278</ref><br />
|KGC-0000 KING CRAB| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban Hi-Rez<ref>3039 p. 298</ref><br />
|MAD-3R MARAUDER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban Hirez II<ref>3085 p. 142</ref><br />
|Arbalest| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban Hirez II<ref>3085 p. 168</ref><br />
|Sphinx| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez II<ref>3039 p. 244</ref><br />
|HNT-151 HORNET| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez II<ref>TRO 3055U p. 54</ref><br />
|GAL-1GLS GALLOWGLAS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez II<ref>TRO 3055U p. 166</ref><br />
|CDG-2A CUDGEL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez II <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 136</ref><br />
|Clan ocelot | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez II <ref>TRO 3050U p. 10</ref><br />
|hnt-171 Hornet | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez II <ref>TRO 3050U p. 64</ref><br />
|hop-4d Hoplite | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban Hi-Rez II <ref>3039 p. 302</ref><br />
|MAD-4A MARAUDER II| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez II-a<ref>TRO 3055U p. 154</ref><br />
|PWR-1X PROWLER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez III Advanced FCS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 144</ref><br />
|DAD-3D DAEDALUS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez IV <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 52</ref><br />
|RZK-9S RAZORBACK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez-B<ref>3039 p. 166</ref><br />
|BNC-3E BANSHEE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez-B<ref>3039 p. 242</ref><br />
|FLE-4 FLEA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez-B <ref>TRO 3050U p. 8</ref><br />
|fle-17 Flea | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban HiRez-B <ref>TRO 3050U p. 222</ref><br />
|KGc-001 King Crab | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban Micronics<ref>3085 p. 260</ref><br />
|Mad-9W2 Marauder| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban TTS-A <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 208</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] Von 4rh-5 Von rohrs / hebis | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban Urban<ref>3039 p. 108</ref><br />
|JVN-10N JAVELIN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dalban Urban <ref>TRO 3050U p. 22</ref><br />
|uM-r63 Urbanmech | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|DeadEye Superlock 18K <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 172</ref><br />
|HUNCHBACK IIC| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Delta Track with Artemis IV FCS <ref>TRO 3050U p. 86</ref><br />
|cGr-3K Charger | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dexter 3 Sensor Suite <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 166</ref><br />
|AMMON | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Digital Scanlok 347<ref>3039 p. 226</ref><br />
|WLF-1 WOLFHOUND| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Digital Scanlok 347<ref>3085 p. 60</ref><br />
|Mlr-b2 Mjolnir| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Digital Scanlok 347<ref>3085 p. 68</ref><br />
|Wlf-5 Wolfhound| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Digital Scanlok 347 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 32</ref><br />
|Wlf-2 Wolfhound | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dillon QuadTrac with Particle Cannon Suite <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 298</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] pX-3r phoenix | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Diplan I-TT <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 210</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] k-3n-kr4 kiso (indu - mech)<br />
|-<br />
|Diplan-IX SideSweeper<ref>3039 p. 32</ref><br />
|MOBILE HQ| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|DlK type Phased Array Sensor System<ref>3085 p. 72</ref><br />
|trG-1n Targe| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|DLK Type Phased Array Sensor System <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 120</ref><br />
|BKW-7R BLACK WATCH| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|DLK Type Phased Array Sensor System <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 230</ref><br />
|TDK-7X THUNDER HAWK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|DLK Type Phased Array Sensor System with Norse Guardian ECM Suite <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 206</ref><br />
|SPR-5F SPECTOR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|DLK Type Phased Array Sensors <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 226</ref><br />
|NSR-9J NIGHTSTAR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|DLK Type Phased Array Sensors <ref>TRO 3050U p. 206</ref><br />
|bMb-12d Bombardier | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|DLK Type Phased Array Sensors <ref>TRO 3050U p. 208</ref><br />
|eXt-4d Exterminator | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|DragonEye 5 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 164</ref><br />
|Clan delphyne (proto mech)<br />
|-<br />
|Dragwell HiRez IV<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 56</ref><br />
|MAD-4S MARAUDER II| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dragwell Hi-Rez IV<ref>3085 p. 268</ref><br />
|Mad-6d Marauder ii| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|DST Model 316/4 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 164</ref><br />
|TYRE | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dtrac Suit 4<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 68</ref><br />
|PHOENIX HAWK IIC 4| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dtrac Suite 1 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 178</ref><br />
|THRESHER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dtrac Suite 4<ref>3085 p. 280</ref><br />
|PHoenix Hawk IIC 7| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dtrac Suite 4 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 132</ref><br />
|MAD CAT MK II| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dtrac Suite 4<ref>TRO 3055U p. 88</ref><br />
|POUNCER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dwyerson Mark XI<ref>3039 p. 194</ref><br />
|TR-7 THRUSH | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dwyerson Mark XI <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 250</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] ltn-g15 lightning | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dwyerson Mark XII<ref>3039 p. 204</ref><br />
|TR-10 TRANSIT | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dwyerson Mark XII<ref>TRO 3055U p. 34</ref><br />
|SNK-1V SNAKE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dwyerson Mark XII <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 108</ref><br />
|BRUTUS ASSAULT TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dwyerson Upgrade Multitask Version 3 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 144</ref><br />
|DFC-O DEFIANCE | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dwyerson Upgrade Multitask Version 3 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 148</ref><br />
|CMT-3T TROIKA | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 1122<ref>3039 p. 118</ref><br />
|CDA-2A CICADA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 1122<ref>TRO 3055U p. 16</ref><br />
|HMR-3M HAMMER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 1122<ref>TRO 3055U p. 48</ref><br />
|ANV-3M ANVIL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 1122 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 36</ref><br />
|cda-3M Cicada | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 128 with TAG <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 78</ref><br />
|EGL-2M EAGLE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 128C<ref>3039 p. 104</ref><br />
|JVN-10N JAVELIN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 128C <ref>TRO 3050U p. 18</ref><br />
|JVn-10p Javelin | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 150A<ref>3039 p. 248</ref><br />
|FLC-4N FALCON| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 150A <ref>TRO 3050U p. 14</ref><br />
|flc-4p Falcon | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 2180<ref>3039 p. 144</ref><br />
|QKD-4G QUICKDRAW| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 2180 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 68</ref><br />
|QKd-5M Quickdraw | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 256/ Missiletrac V Advanced<ref>3085 p. 110</ref><br />
|d-M3d-3 Diomede constructionmech| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 2780<ref>3039 p. 154</ref><br />
|AWS-8Q AWESOME| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 2780<ref>TRO 3055U p. 46</ref><br />
|TR1 WRAITH| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 2780 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 84</ref><br />
|aWs-9M Awesome | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 990<ref>3039 p. 252</ref><br />
|HSR-300-D HUSSAR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 990<ref>3039 p. 282</ref><br />
|STG-3R STINGER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 990 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 264</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec 990 T&T <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 76</ref><br />
|D9-G9 DUAN GUNG| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec MissileTrac X <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 108</ref><br />
|| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec Special T&T <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 112</ref><br />
|JN-G8A JINGGAU| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Dynatec990 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 48</ref><br />
|| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Eagle Eye 400 XX <ref>TRO 3050U p. 52</ref><br />
|Wft-1 Wolf Trap | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Eagle Eye 400XX<ref>TRO 3055U p. 142</ref><br />
|WER-LF-005 WEREWOLF| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Eagle Eye 410 XX with TAG<ref>TRO 3055U p. 32</ref><br />
|WTC-4M WATCHMAN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Eagle Eye B-18 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 90</ref><br />
|BSN-3K BISHAMON| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Eagle Eye SY10-10<ref>3039 p. 142</ref><br />
|DRG-1N DRAGON| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Eagle Eye SY10-10<ref>TRO 3055U p. 28</ref><br />
|DMO-1K DAIMYO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Eagle Eye SY10-10 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 66</ref><br />
|drG-5K Grand Dragon | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Eagle Eye VY 9-3 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 204</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] daiMyo hQ 67-k | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|EI-Pattern J, Series 2.1 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 154</ref><br />
|Clan orc (proto mech)<br />
|-<br />
|Evil Eye<ref>3039 p. 62</ref><br />
|DRILLSON HEAVY HOVER TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Evil Eye block IV with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 14</ref><br />
|GLAIVE MEDIUM TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Falcon 15 Watcher<ref>3085 p. 94</ref><br />
|Glt-7-0 Gallant| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Falcon 15 Watcher<ref>TRO 3055U p. 100</ref><br />
|GRN-D-04 GRAND CRUSADER II| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Falcon12b Watcher <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 102</ref><br />
|VQR-2A VANQUISHER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Falcon15 Watcher <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 92</ref><br />
|LGC-0 I LEGACY| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Faust/Shinji AT/TS (TharHes Ares-7) <ref>TRO 3050U p. 214</ref><br />
|fls-8K Flashman | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Gatherer <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 224</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] bkx-7k battleaxe | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Gatherer Mk II <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 226</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] hMh-3d hammerhands | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter<ref>3039 p. 134</ref><br />
|ENF-4R ENFORCER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter<ref>TRO 3055U p. 30</ref><br />
|WTC-4M WATCHMAN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter<ref>TRO 3055U p. 130</ref><br />
|CPR-HD-003 COPPERHEAD| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter<ref>TRO 3055U p. 170</ref><br />
|JG-R9T2 JUGGERNAUT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 96</ref><br />
|ENF-6M ENFORCER III| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter <ref>TRO 3050U p. 56</ref><br />
|enf-5d Enforcer | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter Mk II <ref>TRO 3050U p. 62</ref><br />
|dV-7d Dervish | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter Mk. II<ref>3039 p. 140</ref><br />
|DV-6M DERVISH| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter Mk. VII <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 50</ref><br />
|OSR-3D OSIRIS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter Mk. XX with Targeting Module and Beagle Active Probe <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 76</ref><br />
|AGS-4D ARGUS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Hunter Type 3 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 86</ref><br />
|SNT-04 SENTRY| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Stalker <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 88</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] blr-2d warlord | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Stalker with Targeting Module<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 36</ref><br />
|OTL-6D OSTSOL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Federated Stalker with Targeting Module <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 98</ref><br />
|SGT-8R SAGITTAIRE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Ferdinand-a<ref>3039 p. 291</ref><br />
|OSR-2C OSTROC| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|FireScan with Indirectrack<ref>3085 p. 48</ref><br />
|Jes II strategic missile carrier| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|FireScan with IndirecTrack<ref>3039 p. 72</ref><br />
|LRM/SRM CARRIER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|FireScan with IndirecTr <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 56</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] jes i tactical Missile carrier | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|FireScan with IndirecTrack <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 146</ref><br />
|DGR-3F DRAGON FIRE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|FireScan with IndirecTrack <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 210</ref><br />
|STY-3C STARSLAYER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|FireScan with IndirectTrack (and Artemis FCS on LRM) <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 96</ref><br />
|SRM/LRM CARRIER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|FOI ScanSys VII <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 186</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] Msk-9h Mackie | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|FoxxFire 180 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 78</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] eyk-45a eyleuka | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|FoxxFire 190<ref>3085 p. 98</ref><br />
|Pen-2H Penthesilea| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Gamma- Five Sensor Package <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p.</ref><br />
|SOLITAIRE| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret 500S<ref>3039 p. 116</ref><br />
|ASN-21 ASSASSIN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret 500S<ref>TRO 3055U p. 132</ref><br />
|FLS-P5 FLASHFIRE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret 500S<ref>TRO 3055U p. 140</ref><br />
|TS-P1D TSUNAMI| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret A6<ref>3039 p. 294</ref><br />
|CRD-3R CRUSADER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret A6<ref>TRO 3055U p. 42</ref><br />
|APL-1M APOLLO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret a99 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 118</ref><br />
|TYM-1A TOYAMA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j<ref>3039 p. 126</ref><br />
|WTH-1 WHITWORTH| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j<ref>3039 p. 148</ref><br />
|JM6-S JAGERMECH| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j<ref>3039 p. 232</ref><br />
|HTM-26T HATAMOTO-CHI| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j<ref>3039 p.</ref><br />
|| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j<ref>3039 p. 293</ref><br />
|RFL-3N RIFLEMAN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 30</ref><br />
|SHADOW HAWK SHD-SD| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|garret D2j<ref>3085 p. 250</ref><br />
|rfl-7X Rifleman| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 62</ref><br />
|| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 74</ref><br />
|YELLOW JACKET GUNSHIP| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 14</ref><br />
|HAWK MOTH GUNSHIP| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 10</ref><br />
|MANTIS LIGHT ATTACK VTOL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j <ref>TRO 3050U p. 74</ref><br />
|JM6-dd Jagermech | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j <ref>TRO 3050U p. 88</ref><br />
|htM-27t Hatamoto-chi | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2J (I) with TAG <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 68</ref><br />
|TSN- V С TESSEN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D2j with Artemis IV FCS <ref>TRO 3050U p. 44</ref><br />
|Wht-2 WhitWorth | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D5j<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 40</ref><br />
|CDR-5K CRUSADER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|garret D5j<ref>3085 p. 252</ref><br />
|crd-8l crusader| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D5j <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 82</ref><br />
|NDA-1K No-Dachi| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret D5j<ref>TRO 3055U p. 162</ref><br />
|HCA-3T HACHIWARA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret E2b <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 64</ref><br />
|KESTREL VTOL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret E2b <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 72</ref><br />
|PEREGRINE ATTACK VTOL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret E5a <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 88</ref><br />
|BANDIT HOVERTANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret F22C <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 90</ref><br />
|TNS-4S THANATOS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret F22C.<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 46</ref><br />
|WHM-8D WARHAMMER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret Fib <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 66</ref><br />
|BADGER TRACKED TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret GRNDTRK 9<ref>3039 p. 288</ref><br />
|SCP-1N SCORPION| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|garret gRNDtRK9<ref>3085 p. 240</ref><br />
|scP-10M Scorpion| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|garret JQ31<ref>3085 p. 258</ref><br />
|WHM-11t Warhammer| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret O2j<ref>TRO 3055U p. 68</ref><br />
|WR-DG-02FC WAR DOG| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret T11fc <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 110</ref><br />
|JM6-D3 JAGERMECH III| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret T12A<ref>TRO 3055U p. 98</ref><br />
|RJN-200-A RAIJIN II| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret T15AJ <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 176</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] jkr-8t jackrabbit | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret T15J<ref>TRO 3055U p. 96</ref><br />
|NXS2-A NEXUS II| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Garret T97C <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 54</ref><br />
|GUR-2G GURKHA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Gatekeeper Model 5<ref>TRO 3055U p. 178</ref><br />
|VANDAL | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GC MultiTrac System Type 6 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 124</ref><br />
|VKG-2F VIKING| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GEG Pattern 490/1<ref>TRO 3055U p. 104</ref><br />
|BABOON 2| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GEG Pattern 491/6 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 164</ref><br />
|MATADOR| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GEG Pattern 491/8<ref>TRO 3055U p. 118</ref><br />
|VIPER 3| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GEG Pattern 492/1 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 134</ref><br />
|SCYLLA| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GEG Pattern 500/3 with Targeting Computer<ref>TRO 3055U p. 114</ref><br />
|GOSHAWK 3| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|General systems AV-12 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 206</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] gld-4r gladiator | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GH D8j TTS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 116</ref><br />
|GALAHAD 18| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GME HiTrak-3 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 66</ref><br />
|HSN-7D HELLSPAWN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Goshawk E-Series <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 148</ref><br />
|Clan jupiter | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GPT Multi-Track <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 16</ref><br />
|| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|groundtracker ee-4<ref>3085 p. 40</ref><br />
|Winston Combat Vehicle| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GroundTracker EE-4 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 182</ref><br />
|Puma assault tank | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|GuideRite w/Laser<ref>3039 p. 94</ref><br />
|ONTOS HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GuideRite with Laser Coordination Link <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 122</ref><br />
|FNHK-9K FALCON HAWK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|GuideRite with Laser Coordination Link and Artemis FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 116</ref><br />
|ONTOS HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Hakkøn MicroSystems <ref>TRO 3050U p. 114</ref><br />
|Dasher | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
|-<br />
|Hakkøn-Morris LAP <ref>TRO 3050U p. 142</ref><br />
|Gladiator | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
|-<br />
|Halo 901 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 148</ref><br />
|Gabriel | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Hanover Sight 3000-A-K-P <ref>TRO 3050U p. 154</ref><br />
|Rotunda | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|HarfordCo XKZ 1<ref>3039 p. 300</ref><br />
|BLR-1G BATTLEMASTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hartford Hypertrak/Q-45<ref>3039 p. 276</ref><br />
|HGN-733 HIGHLANDER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hartford S2000A<ref>TRO 3055U p. 20</ref><br />
|JA-KL-1532 JACKAL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hartford S2000A<ref>TRO 3055U p. 148</ref><br />
|AQS-3 AQUAGLADIUS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hartford T100M <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 96</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] hyn-4a hyena salVageMech (indu - mech)<br />
|-<br />
|Hartford TA10<ref>3039 p. 124</ref><br />
|VL-2T VULCAN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hartford-Allied trakit 8 V<ref>3085 p. 300</ref><br />
|PHX-HK1 PHoeniX Hawk LAM MK I| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HartfordCo XHW 7 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 180</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] glh-2d galahad | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HartfordCo XKX 2 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 246</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] Xnt-3o Xanthos | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HartfordCo XKZ 1 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 96</ref><br />
|shG-2f Shogun | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Hawk Pattern 7<ref>TRO 3055U p. 176</ref><br />
|BASHKIR | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hawk’s Eyes Mk VI<ref>TRO 3055U p. 188</ref><br />
|VISIGOTH | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hawkeye 58 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 134</ref><br />
|Thor | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
|-<br />
|Hawkeye B3<ref>3039 p. 264</ref><br />
|LNC25-02 LANCELOT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HawkEye J360 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 140</ref><br />
|Masakari | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
|-<br />
|HCFA 3005 4.3 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 164</ref><br />
|HANKYU| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HCFA 3047 1.5 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 134</ref><br />
|SNOW FOX| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HCFA3047 1.5 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 108</ref><br />
|HELLION| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Housier DDY-7<ref>TRO 3055U p. 134</ref><br />
|MTS-S MANTIS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HT9 TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 144</ref><br />
|URBANMECH IIC| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HT9 TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 40</ref><br />
|DONAR ASSAULT HELICOPTER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|HT9 TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 40</ref><br />
|DONAR ASSAULT HELICOPTER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hunter (3) Dedicated TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 142</ref><br />
|PACK HUNTER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hunter (7) Dedicated TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 148</ref><br />
|ARCTIC WOLF| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hunter (7a) Dedicated TTS with Targeting Computer <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 146</ref><br />
|Clan cygnus | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hunter (7a) Dedicated ttS<ref>3085 p. 178</ref><br />
|Hellstar| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hunter 5 Dedicated ttS<ref>3085 p. 144</ref><br />
|Pack Hunter ii| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hunter 62B<ref>TRO 3055U p. 194</ref><br />
|JENGIZ | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Hunter(2) Dedicated ITS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 40</ref><br />
|HEIMDALL GROUND MONITOR TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|I-Bal Mark 3<ref>3039 p. 12</ref><br />
|SWIFT WIND SCOUT CAR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|IDC ScopeTrak I<ref>TRO 3055U p. 136</ref><br />
|LST-2 LONGSHOT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|IMB 5000 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 234</ref><br />
|thK-63 Tomahawk (Fighter) IS<br />
|-<br />
|IMB Hawkeye 30<ref>3039 p. 174</ref><br />
|ANGEL LIGHT STRIKE FIGHTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|IMB SYS 3000<ref>3039 p. 180</ref><br />
|DEFENDER MEDIUM STRIKE FIGHTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|IMB SYS 3600<ref>3039 p. 192</ref><br />
|F-10 CHEETAH | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|IMB SYS 3740<ref>3039 p. 214</ref><br />
|F-100 RIEVER | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Instatrac Mark XV<ref>3039 p. 274</ref><br />
|THG-10E THUG| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Integrated Bravo-7 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 126</ref><br />
|BURROCK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Integrated Bravo-7 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 180</ref><br />
|CAULDRON-BORN| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Irian 511<ref>TRO 3055U p. 56</ref><br />
|HRC-LS-9000 HERCULES| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Irian 511 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 68</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Irian FFE-9 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 58</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] thuMper artillery Vehicle | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Ironhold Mk II <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 186</ref><br />
|NIGHT GYR| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|IsBM Lantirn<ref>3039 p. 8</ref><br />
|| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Jal ConstrucTrak Mk I <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 228</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] jaw-66b jabberwocky engineerMech (indu - mech)<br />
|-<br />
|Jalastar TargiTrack 717 with Beagle Active Probe <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 106</ref><br />
|TYPHOON URBAN ASSAULT VEHICLE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|JFIX/olivetti Pinpoint Advanced<ref>3085 p. 166</ref><br />
|Flamberge| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|J-track 52<ref>3085 p. 150</ref><br />
|Dasher ii| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Kallon Lock-On with Artemis FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 114</ref><br />
|CHALLENGER X MBT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Kallon Sure-Shot C3 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 112</ref><br />
|PARTISAN AIR DEFENSE TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Kallon Victory tracker Delta<ref>3085 p. 112</ref><br />
|PGd-Y3 Poignard | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|KBC Starsight Model 3 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 204</ref><br />
|lnc25-01 Lancelot | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|KBC Starsight Model QTA1 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 216</ref><br />
|EXC-B2 EXCALIBUR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Keeper of the Peace <ref>3085 p. 104</ref><br />
|PKP-1a Peacekeeper| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Ki-II TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 212</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] sb-27 sabre| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Knorr Block 3 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 152</ref><br />
|HSCL-I-О HUSCARL | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Kressly-Lantern Allet T101 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 94</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] ti-2p titan ii | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Lamprey VXX <ref>TRO 3050U p. 156</ref><br />
|Nightshade | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Land Shark Scanner 15 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 274</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] Marsden ii Main battle tank | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Lester ATR <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 292</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] ignis | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Locator C100 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 280</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] bwp-2b ymir | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Lockhead/CBM TarSet 55<ref>3039 p. 208</ref><br />
|LCF-R15 LUCIFER | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|lockheed/CBM tarSet 75<ref>3085 p. 116</ref><br />
|Mr-1s Morgenstern | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Lynx RM <ref>TRO 3050U p. 174</ref><br />
|Magi | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Magestrix Gamma <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 52</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] danai support Vehicle | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Magestrix Gamma<ref>3039 p. 76</ref><br />
|PIKE SUPPORT VEHICLE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Magestrix Gamma <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 142</ref><br />
|MLN-1A MERLIN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Majesty 032-199<ref>3085 p. 58</ref><br />
|Meb-9 Ebony| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|MaLandry 34<ref>3039 p. 158</ref><br />
|VTR-9B VICTOR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Marconi TTS series II <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 46</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] taMerlane strike sled | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mark 11<ref>TRO 3055U p. 192</ref><br />
|SABUTAI | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mark 11 IHADS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 136</ref><br />
|COMMANDO IIC| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mark 11 IHADS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 44</ref><br />
|ANHUR TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mark 11 IHADS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 44</ref><br />
|ANHUR TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mark 4 TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 140</ref><br />
|MANDRILL| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mark 9 TTS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 186</ref><br />
|TURK | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mark IX TTS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 180</ref><br />
|AVAR | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mars System 9 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 144</ref><br />
|Daishi | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
|-<br />
|Mars System 9 (Build 2) with targeting Computer<ref>3085 p. 174</ref><br />
|Night Wolf| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Martin-Quarry tarsys XlR 1.0 <ref>3085 p. 266</ref><br />
|LGb-12r Longbow| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Martin-Quarry Tarsys XLR 2.2 with Artemis IV FCS<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 54</ref><br />
|LGB-12C LONGBOW| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Master’s Sight 1-Omega <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 92</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] c-ang-o archangel | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Master’s Sight 1-Omega <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 84</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] c-dVa-o deVa | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Master’s Sight 1-Omega <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 80</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] c-grg-o grigori | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Master’s Sight 1-Omega <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 66</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] c-Mk-o Malak | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Master’s Sight 1-Omega <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 74</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] c-prt-o preta | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Master’s Sight 1-Omega <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 90</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] c-srp-o seraph | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Master’s Sight 2-Psi <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 98</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] s-ha-o shade| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Master’s Sight 2-Psi <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 100</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] s-rsl-o rusalka| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Master’s Sight 2-Psi <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 102</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] s-str-o striga| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel<ref>3039 p. 38</ref><br />
|COOLANT TRUCK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel<ref>3085 p. 86</ref><br />
|tft-a9 Thunder Fox| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel<ref>3085 p. 102</ref><br />
|or-2i Orochi| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 96</ref><br />
|AKU- IX AKUMA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel<ref>TRO 3055U p. 52</ref><br />
|DAI-01 DAIKYU| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel<ref>TRO 3055U p. 64</ref><br />
|PTR-4D PENETRATOR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 130</ref><br />
|BJ2-O BLACKJACK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 150</ref><br />
|OBK-M10 O-BAKEMONO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 154</ref><br />
|SD1-O SUNDER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel <ref>TRO 3050U p. 26</ref><br />
|Jr7-K Jenner | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel <ref>TRO 3050U p. 90</ref><br />
|Vtr-9K Victor | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel <ref>TRO 3050U p. 108</ref><br />
|as7-K Atlas | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel with Beagle Active Probe and TAG <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 124</ref><br />
|OW-1 OWENS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel with Beagle Active Probe and TAG Plus <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 140</ref><br />
|BHKU-O BLACK HAWK-KU| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Sentinel-4<ref>3039 p. 234</ref><br />
|DCMS-MX90-D DABOKU| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Stalker <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 120</ref><br />
|RTX-1O RAPTOR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Stalker <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 126</ref><br />
|SR1-O STRIDER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi Stalker <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 144</ref><br />
|AV1-O AVATAR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Matabushi SuperSentinel <ref>TRO 3050U p. 102</ref><br />
| | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Maui Missile Trak <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 242</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] frb-2e firebee | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Maxell TA 55<ref>3039 p. 28</ref><br />
|HARASSER MISSILE PLATFORM| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Maxell tA 85 with tAg<ref>3085 p. 42</ref><br />
|Moltke MBT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Maxell TA70 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 12</ref><br />
|STYGIAN STRIKE TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Maxim New Standard TargetTrack<ref>3039 p. 64</ref><br />
|MAXIM HOVER TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Maxwell TA55 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 80</ref><br />
|PLAINSMAN MEDIUM HOVERTANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mercury-IV<ref>3039 p. 262</ref><br />
|CHP-2N CHAMPION| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mercury-IV with Artemis IV FCS <ref>TRO 3050U p. 202</ref><br />
|chp-1n Champion | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Mercy Industries of Talon<ref>3039 p. 20</ref><br />
|MOBILE ARMY SURGICAL HOSPITAL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mk. CXC-4 <ref>3085 p. 278</ref><br />
|Rifleman iic 8| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Mk. CXC-4 with Active Probe<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 66</ref><br />
|RIFLEMAN IIC 3| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Model 92 "Stalker" <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 112</ref><br />
|LOBO| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Model 92 “Stalker”<ref>TRO 3055U p. 86</ref><br />
|PHANTOM| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Multi- platform T12d <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 138</ref><br />
|СИХ-О CORAX | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Multi-Spread 9 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 134</ref><br />
|Clan criMson hawk | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|N&D Handsfree<ref>3039 p. 26</ref><br />
|WARRIOR H-7 ATTACK HELICOPTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|N&D Handsfree <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 58</ref><br />
|WARRIOR H8 ATTACK HELICOPTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|N&D Longreach <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 286</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] trb-d36 thunderbird| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Nashan Diana Mark II Targeting Computer<ref>TRO 3055U p. 72</ref><br />
|GUN-1ERD GUNSLINGER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Nashan trac V-102 with Active Probe<ref>3085 p. 78</ref><br />
|Gst-10 Ghost| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Nashan Trac V-102 with Active Probe <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 72</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] Mon-266 Mongoose ii | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Neko Megane 6 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 146</ref><br />
|ON-1 ONI | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Neko Megane 6 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 150</ref><br />
|MIK-O TATSU | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Night Fire 7<ref>3085 p. 70</ref><br />
|rPt-3X Raptor ii| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|None<ref>3039 p. 18</ref><br />
|J-27 ORDNANCE TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|None<ref>3039 p. 40</ref><br />
|KARNOV UR TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|None<ref>3039 p. 54</ref><br />
|ENGINEERING VEHICLE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|None<ref>3039 p. 172</ref><br />
|BOOMERANG SPOTTER PLANE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|None<ref>3039 p. 186</ref><br />
|PLANETLIFTER AIR TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|None <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 282</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] lM4/c lumberjack | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|None <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 44</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] Mit 23 Mash Vehicle | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|None <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 248</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] wi-dM deMolitionMech | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|None (manual gunners) <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 70</ref><br />
|KARNOV UR TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 10-40 LTR<ref>3039 p. 78</ref><br />
|LT-MOB-25 MOBILE LONG TOM ARTILLERY| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 1078<ref>3039 p. 146</ref><br />
|CPLT-C1 CATAPULT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 1078 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 72</ref><br />
|cplt-c3 Catapult | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|o/P 1078 with Beagle Active Probe<ref>3085 p. 82</ref><br />
|osP-26 Osprey| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 1500 ARB<ref>3039 p. 297</ref><br />
|WHM-6R WARHAMMER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 2000<ref>TRO 3055U p. 168</ref><br />
|SQS-TH-002 SASQUATCH| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 2000A<ref>3039 p. 289</ref><br />
|SHD-2H SHADOW HAWK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|o/P 2000C-5<ref>3085 p. 290</ref><br />
|SHD-X2 Shadow Hawk LAM| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 2000JSA<ref>3039 p. 22</ref><br />
|PACKRAT LONG RANGE PATROL VEHICLE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 2500TGFD<ref>3039 p. 216</ref><br />
|STU-K5 STUKA | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 3000<ref>3039 p. 190</ref><br />
|SYD-21 SEYDLITZ | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 3000 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 224</ref><br />
|trn-3t Trident (Fighter) IS<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 911<ref>3039 p. 281</ref><br />
|LCT-1V LOCUST| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 911 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 20</ref><br />
|GLADIUS MEDIUM HOVERTANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 911 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 126</ref><br />
|Y-H9G YU HUANG| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|o/P 911 targeting System<ref>3085 p. 228</ref><br />
|stG-3P Stinger| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P 911, OT Mod 3<ref>TRO 3055U p. 128</ref><br />
|KTO-2A KOTO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P FiberFeed 201<ref>TRO 3055U p. 174</ref><br />
|GTR-1 GREAT TURTLE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P FiberFeed 201 with Artemis IV FCS Interface<ref>TRO 3055U p. 82</ref><br />
|T-IT-N10M GRAND TITAN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P GRD059 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 172</ref><br />
|Marksman | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|O/P GRNDSTAT 50A<ref>3039 p. 84</ref><br />
|VON LUCKNER HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|o/P lAMtRACK 45<ref>3085 p. 292</ref><br />
|STG-a1 Stinger LAM MK I| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P PulseTrack III<ref>TRO 3055U p. 76</ref><br />
|| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P Scanoptics 400BP<ref>TRO 3055U p. 44</ref><br />
|GRM-R-PR29 GRIM REAPER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P Scanoptics Model 5<ref>TRO 3055U p. 38</ref><br />
|HUR-WO-R4L HURON WARRIOR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|O/P TA1240<ref>3039 p. 106</ref><br />
|JVN-10N JAVELIN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|o/P tA1240<ref>3085 p. 64</ref><br />
|sdr-8r Spider| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|octagon Accutrak with enhanced targeting<ref>3085 p. 88</ref><br />
|brM-5a Brahma| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Octagon Tartrac System C<ref>3039 p. 286</ref><br />
|PXH-1 PHOENIX HAWK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Octagon Tartrac System C<ref>3039 p. 301</ref><br />
|LGB-0W LONGBOW| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|octagon tartrac System C<ref>3085 p. 84</ref><br />
|nH-2 RooK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Octagon Tartrac System C <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 100</ref><br />
|MHL-X1 MARSHAL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Octagon Tartrac System E with Beagle Active Probe <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 62</ref><br />
|BL-HND BLOODHOUND| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Octagon Tartrac, System C<ref>3039 p. 287</ref><br />
|GRF-1N GRIFFIN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Olivetti Pinpoint Advanced <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 114</ref><br />
|PINION| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Omicron IX<ref>3039 p. 90</ref><br />
|SCHREK PPC CARRIER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Omicron TrackerKeeper<ref>TRO 3055U p. 74</ref><br />
|ALB-3U ALBATROSS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Omicron VII<ref>3039 p. 86</ref><br />
|DEMOLISHER HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Omicron VII<ref>3039 p. 240</ref><br />
|THE-S THORN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|omicron X<ref>3085 p. 46</ref><br />
|Trajan assault Infantry Fighting Vehicle| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|omicron XX<ref>3085 p. 176</ref><br />
|Onager| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|omicron XX<ref>3085 p. 272</ref><br />
|Locust iic 7| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Omicron XX<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 60</ref><br />
|LOCUST IIC 4| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Omicron XX with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 110</ref><br />
|SPIRIT| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|omnicron trackerKeeper<ref>3085 p. 100</ref><br />
|Prf-1r Prefect| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|ON-6 with Beagle Active Probe <ref>TRO 3050U p. 188</ref><br />
|Mon-66 Mongoose | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|OptiSight-12<ref>3039 p. 34</ref><br />
|SCORPION LIGHT TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Optisight-12 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 132</ref><br />
|CLN-7V CHAMELEON| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|OptiSight-12 with Beagle Active Probe and TAG <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 54</ref><br />
|SPRINT SCOUT HELICOPTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|OptiTrack Techniques<ref>3039 p. 14</ref><br />
|ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIERS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Orion 80 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 186</ref><br />
|the-n Thorn | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|orion Suretrak XVII with targeting Computer<ref>3085 p. 106</ref><br />
|tr-Xb Trebaruna| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|OWT&T Dirk 2 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 300</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] Qua-51t Quasit MilitiaMech | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Pattern 9 TTS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 184</ref><br />
|SULLA | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|PhantomTrac 55 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 226</ref><br />
|sWf-606 Swift (Fighter) IS<br />
|-<br />
|Proto-Enhanced, Model 4 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 156</ref><br />
|Clan procyon (proto mech)<br />
|-<br />
|PS/1/12 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 230</ref><br />
|Zro-114 Zero (Fighter) IS<br />
|-<br />
|Pulsar Tri-X<ref>3039 p. 268</ref><br />
|GLT-4L GUILLOTINE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Pulsar Tri-X <ref>TRO 3050U p. 210</ref><br />
|Glt-3n Guillotine | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Quadrant XD <ref>TRO 3050U p. 178</ref><br />
|Fury | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|Radcom T11<ref>3039 p. 212</ref><br />
|TR-13 TRANSGRESSOR | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Radcom T11<ref>3039 p. 214</ref><br />
|SL-15 SLAYER | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Radcom t11<ref>3085 p. 18</ref><br />
|Yasha Vtol| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Radcom T5<ref>3039 p. 178</ref><br />
|GUARDIAN FIGHTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RadCom TXX<ref>3039 p. 283</ref><br />
|WSP-1A WASP| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Radcom TXX <ref>TRO 3050U p. 16</ref><br />
|ffl-4b Firefly | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|RadCom TXXI<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 18</ref><br />
|WSP-3L WASP| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Radcom tXXI<ref>3085 p. 92</ref><br />
|sHY-3b Shen Yi| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Radcom tXXI<ref>3085 p. 230</ref><br />
|WsP-8t Wasp| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Rand lAMtar 100<ref>3085 p. 296</ref><br />
|WsP-100 Wasp LAM MK I| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Randar Pinpoint-HY <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 156</ref><br />
|DVS-2 DEVASTATOR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Randar Pinpoint-HY <ref>TRO 3050U p. 76</ref><br />
|ces-3r Caesar | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Rander Crosshairs <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 222</ref><br />
|STC-2C STRIKER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Rander Pinpoint-HY <ref>TRO 3050U p. 70</ref><br />
|aXM-1n Axman | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Rander TA2 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 230</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] cnt-1d centurion| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Rander TA4<ref>3039 p. 196</ref><br />
|SPR-H5 SPARROWHAWK | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Rander TA7 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 156</ref><br />
|EST-О EISENSTURM | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Rander TAS<ref>3039 p. 212</ref><br />
|CHP-W5 CHIPPEWA | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Ranger LAF Model 2 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 192</ref><br />
|hsr-200-d Hussar | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Ranker TA800<ref>3039 p. 200</ref><br />
|CORSAIR | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA econotrac<ref>3085 p. 132</ref><br />
|Balac strike Vtol| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Econotrac <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 32</ref><br />
|TYR Infantry Support Tank| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mk. II (Olivetti), TracTex Alpha-1 (Pinard)<ref>3039 p. 30</ref><br />
|J. EDGAR LIGHT HOVER TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark IV <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 244</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] ksc-3i koschei | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark VI <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 160</ref><br />
|URSUS| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark VI with Artemis IV FCS <ref>3085 p. 154</ref><br />
|Ursus ii| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark VIII with ECM Suite<ref>TRO 3055U p. 160</ref><br />
|MRP-3S MORPHEUS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark X<ref>3039 p. 295</ref><br />
|TDR-5S THUNDERBOLT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark X<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 42</ref><br />
|TDR-9M THUNDERBOLT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark X<ref>3085 p. 254</ref><br />
|tdr-10M Thunderbolt| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XI<ref>3039 p. 210</ref><br />
|SL-17 SHILONE | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XI<ref>3085 p. 238</ref><br />
|Grf-4r Griffin| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XII<ref>3085 p. 172</ref><br />
|Bruin| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XII<ref>3039 p. 266</ref><br />
|BMB-10D BOMBARDIER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XII<ref>3039 p. 296</ref><br />
|ARC-2R ARCHER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XII <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 72</ref><br />
|CNS-5M CRONUS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XII <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 90</ref><br />
|FULCRUM HOVERTANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XII with Artemis IV<ref>3085 p. 256</ref><br />
|arc-9M Archer| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XII with Artemis IV System<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 44</ref><br />
|ARCHER ARC-8M| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XIII with Artemis IV system <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 98</ref><br />
|BCN-3R BUCCANEER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XXII<ref>3085 p. 74</ref><br />
|eft-7X Eisenfaust| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mark XXII <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 70</ref><br />
|UZL-3S UZIEL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac MK II<ref>3039 p. 184</ref><br />
|’MECHBUSTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mk X <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 204</ref><br />
|NTK-2Q NIGHT HAWK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mk XII <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 138</ref><br />
|| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Mk. XIX <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 140</ref><br />
|DARO-1 DAGGER | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Version 8<ref>3085 p. 158</ref><br />
|Kuma| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Version 8 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 122</ref><br />
|ARCAS| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrac Version 8a<ref>TRO 3055U p. 120</ref><br />
|BEHEMOTH 2| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrack Mark IX <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 194</ref><br />
|KODIAK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|RCA Instatrack Mark XXII<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 28</ref><br />
|SCP-12S SCORPION| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Reginald Systems TC-A <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 76</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] lgn-2d legionnaire | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Ribaldi 402 TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 150</ref><br />
|Clan erinyes (proto mech)<br />
|-<br />
|Ringo Plant 88 Mk. 2 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 236</ref><br />
|Gtha-500 Gotha (Fighter) IS<br />
|-<br />
|Ryder Track IV <ref>TRO 3050U p. 240</ref><br />
|irn-sd1 Ironsides (Fighter) IS<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
|S438 Mk. III Mod. 7 TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 188</ref><br />
|KINGFISHER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Salamander Systems CommPhase Unit<ref>3039 p. 44</ref><br />
|PEGASUS SCOUT HOVER TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Salamander Systems CommPhase Unit<ref>3085 p. 26</ref><br />
|Ranger VV1 armored fighting Vehicle| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Salamander Systems CommPhase Unit <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 214</ref><br />
|CTS-6Y CESTUS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scantrex Dual Tac<ref>3039 p. 56</ref><br />
|HETZER WHEELED ASSAULT GUN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scantrex DualTac <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 22</ref><br />
|FORTUNE WHEELED ASSAULT VEHICLE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scarborough Assault-1<ref>3039 p. 46</ref><br />
|SALADIN ASSAULT HOVER TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scarborough Track-1-1<ref>3039 p. 48</ref><br />
|SARACEN MEDIUM HOVER TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scarborough Tracky-2<ref>3039 p. 50</ref><br />
|SCIMITAR MEDIUM HOVER TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scarborough Tracky 1 with TAG <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 92</ref><br />
|MAXIM HOVERTANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scarborough tracky 3<ref>3085 p. 28</ref><br />
|Maxim MK II Transport| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scarborough Tracky 3 with Beagle Active Probe and TAG <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 78</ref><br />
|PEGASUS SCOUT HOVERTANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scope 115F<ref>3039 p. 202</ref><br />
|SL-25 SAMURAI | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scope 2000<ref>3085 p. 38</ref><br />
|Kinnol Mbt| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scope 2000 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 84</ref><br />
|INI-02 INITIATE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scope 30 RDNST <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 200</ref><br />
|PADILLA HEAVY ARTILLERY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scope 30 RNDST <ref>TRO 3050U p. 94</ref><br />
|crK-5003-2 Katana (crocKett) | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Scope 30 RNDST <ref>TRO 3050U p. 218</ref><br />
|crK-5003-1 Crockett | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Scope 30 RNDST <ref>TRO 3050U p. 176</ref><br />
|Burke | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Scope 40 RNDST <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 220</ref><br />
|SPT-N2 SPARTAN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scope Paint <ref>TRO 3050U p. 228</ref><br />
|spd-502 Spad (Fighter) IS<br />
|-<br />
|Scope3580 with Targeting Computer <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 74</ref><br />
|LGH-4W LIGHTRAY| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scope85 RDNST with TAG <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 44</ref><br />
|RDS-2A RED SHIFT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scrambler-7 Series<ref>3039 p. 256</ref><br />
|WVE-6N WYVERN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Scrambler-7 Series <ref>TRO 3050U p. 196</ref><br />
|WVe-5n Wyvern | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Series I GDS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 156</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series II GPS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 48</ref><br />
|SVANTOVIT INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLE| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series II GPS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 48</ref><br />
|SVANTOVIT INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLE| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series III GDS with Active Probe <ref>TRO 3050U p. 116</ref><br />
|Koshi | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
|-<br />
|Series III OPT <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 176</ref><br />
|ORION IIC| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series III OPT <ref>TRO 3050U p. 136</ref><br />
|Mad Cat | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
|-<br />
|Series JFIX/Olivetti Pinpoint Advanced <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 192</ref><br />
|TURKINA| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series JFVII integrated <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 176</ref><br />
|BLACK LANNER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series JFVIII KITT <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 162</ref><br />
|FIRE FALCON| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series JFVIII KITT <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 146</ref><br />
|COUGAR| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series V OPT<ref>TRO 3055U p. 90</ref><br />
|LINEBACKER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI Integrated TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 138</ref><br />
|ICESTORM| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI Integrated TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 58</ref><br />
|KU WHEELED ASSAULT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI Integrated ttS <ref>3085 p. 134</ref><br />
|Zephyros infantry support vehicle| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI KITT <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 184</ref><br />
|GRIZZLY| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI KITT <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 172</ref><br />
|GUILLOTINE IIC| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI KITT <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 46</ref><br />
|INDRA INFANTRY TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI KITT <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 46</ref><br />
|INDRA INFANTRY TRANSPORT| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI TTS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 122</ref><br />
|KRAKEN 4| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 166</ref><br />
|PREDATOR| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 66</ref><br />
|HUITZILOPOCHTLI ASSAULT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series VI TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 66</ref><br />
|HUITZILOPOCHTLI ASSAULT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XL FWS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 54</ref><br />
|EPONA PURSUIT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XL FWS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 54</ref><br />
|EPONA PURSUIT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XL FWS with TRTTS Mk III Tacticom Active Probe <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 30</ref><br />
|HEPHAESTUS SCOUT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XLII TLS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 34</ref><br />
|ENYO STRIKE TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XXVI IWS with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 62</ref><br />
|ISHTAR HEAVY FIRE SUPPORT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XXVI IWS with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 62</ref><br />
|ISHTAR HEAVY FIRE SUPPORT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XXVIII IWS<ref>3085 p. 136</ref><br />
|Joust BE 700 Medium Tank| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XXVIII IWS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 36</ref><br />
|SHODEN| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XXX MultiTrack <ref>TRO 3050U p. 118</ref><br />
|Uller | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
|-<br />
|Series XXXII Multitrack <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 158</ref><br />
|STALKING SPIDER| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XXXII Multitrack IWS with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 68</ref><br />
|MARS ASSAULT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Series XXXII Multitrack IWS with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 68</ref><br />
|MARS ASSAULT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Sky Tracer WL with Beagle Active Probe <ref>TRO 3050U p. 158</ref><br />
|Cyrano | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Skyhunter IV <ref>TRO 3050U p. 184</ref><br />
|McY-99 Mercury | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Skyhunter IV w/ Forward-1 TAG and Wunderland Beagle Active Probe <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 42</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] crow scout helicopter | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Sloane 220 Lockover System<ref>3039 p. 120</ref><br />
|CLNT-2-3T CLINT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Sloane 220 Lockover System <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 150</ref><br />
|CLINT IIC| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Sloane 220 Lockover System <ref>TRO 3050U p. 38</ref><br />
|clnt-2-3u Clint | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Sloane 220 Lockover System <ref>TRO 3050U p. 122</ref><br />
|Dragonfly | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
|-<br />
|Sonar Sync Tracker<ref>3039 p. 98</ref><br />
|NEPTUNE SUBMARINE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Spanke <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 182</ref><br />
|CROSSBOW| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Spanke 112-A <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 166</ref><br />
|BATTLE COBRA| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Spar 3C <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 94</ref><br />
|TLRl-O TEMPLAR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Spar 3c Tight Band<ref>3039 p. 162</ref><br />
|STK-3F STALKER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Standard Smartrack<ref>3085 p. 22</ref><br />
|Giggins APC| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Standard targettrack<ref>3085 p. 24</ref><br />
|Demon Medium tank| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Standus 3 with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 178</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] ky2-d-02 kyudo | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Starbeam 3000<ref>3039 p. 260</ref><br />
|KTO-18 KINTARO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
|-<br />
|Starbeam 3000 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 200</ref><br />
|Kto-20 Kintaro | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
|-<br />
|Starlight LX-1 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 220</ref><br />
|hGn-732 Highlander | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base]] | [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Starlight Seeker LX-4X <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 224</ref><br />
|EMP-6A EMPEROR| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| SturmFeur Highlight with BlindFire Radar<ref>3039 p. 92</ref><br />
|STURMFEUR HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Sturmfeur Highlight with BlindFire Radar <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 208</ref><br />
|TLN-5W TALON| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Sync Tracker (39-42071)<ref>3039 p. 290</ref><br />
|WVR-6R WOLVERINE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Sync Tracker (39-42071) <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 26</ref><br />
|AJAX ASSAULT TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Sync Tracker (39-42071) with Artemis IV System<ref>TRO 3055U p. 66</ref><br />
|MDG-1A RAKSHASA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Sync Tracker (40-TC) with Artemis IV FCS<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 20</ref><br />
|VLK-QD I VALKYRIE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]] <br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Sync Tracker (55-42071) <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 82</ref><br />
|GRM-01A GARM| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| SynCom DEC with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 142</ref><br />
|LX-2 LANCE | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| SynCom Master <ref>TRO 3050U p. 232</ref><br />
|rGu-133e Rogue (Fighter) IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| SynCom VAX <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 266</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] f-77 deathstalker| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| SynCom VAX<ref>3039 p. 206</ref><br />
|F-90 STINGRAY | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Sync-Tracker (39-42071)<ref>3039 p. 284</ref><br />
|VLK-QA VALKYRIE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Sync-tracker (39-42071)<ref>3085 p. 232</ref><br />
|VlK-qt2 Valkyrie| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
| T&T Type3X <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 160</ref><br />
|СHAERONEA | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| t-800 Series 5<ref>3085 p. 44</ref><br />
|Fensalir Combat WiGe| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tacticon Tracer 150b <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 182</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] hep-2h helepolis | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tacticon Tracer 280<ref>3039 p. 164</ref><br />
|CP-10-Z CYCLOPS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tacticon Tracer 280 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 100</ref><br />
|cp-11-a Cyclops | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| tactoM IV<ref>3085 p. 14</ref><br />
|Fox armored car| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tansech C30-97<ref>3039 p. 110</ref><br />
|JVN-10N JAVELIN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tar Tec Mini-Find<ref>3039 p. 70</ref><br />
|HI-SCOUT DRONE CARRIER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Targa-7, Vid-Com-17<ref>3039 p. 254</ref><br />
|STN-3K SENTINEL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Targa-7, Vid-Com-17 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 194</ref><br />
|stn-3l Sentinel | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| 0/P 911 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 86</ref><br />
|LHU-2B LAO HU| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Targeting System 2.3<ref>3039 p. 24</ref><br />
|SKULKER WHEELED SCOUT TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrack 717<ref>3039 p. 74</ref><br />
|MANTICORE HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrack 717 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 28</ref><br />
|SCHILTRON| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrack 717 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 24</ref><br />
|MYRMIDON MEDIUM TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrack 717 w/Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 102</ref><br />
|TOKUGAWA HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TargiTrak 700<ref>3039 p. 182</ref><br />
|METEOR HEAVY STRIKE FIGHTER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tarmac Quasar V <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 170</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] cobra transport Vtol | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tarmac Quasar V <ref>TRO 3050U p. 150</ref><br />
|Ripper | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TBR LaserTrac <ref>TRO 3050U p. 168</ref><br />
|Thor artillery vehicle | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tek Tru-Trak<ref>3039 p. 270</ref><br />
|BL-7-KNT BLACK KNIGHT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tek Tru-Trak <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 134</ref><br />
|END-6Q ENFIELD| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Telecron M75 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 188</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] hct-213 hellcat| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Telecron M75 with Beagle Active Probe <ref>TRO 3050U p. 238</ref><br />
|hct-213b Hellcat ii (Fighter) IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TGI 2331C/ TGI F-190 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 160</ref><br />
|Lightning | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes AGART<ref>3039 p. 42</ref><br />
|HUNTER LIGHT SUPPORT TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes AGART with Artemis FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 76</ref><br />
|HUNTER LIGHT SUPPORT TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Alpha-2a<ref>3039 p. 10</ref><br />
|SAVANNAH MASTER HOVERCRAFT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares LM <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 92</ref><br />
|CBR-02 COBRA| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-5 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 216</ref><br />
|thG-11e Thug | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-5B<ref>TRO 3055U p. 14</ref><br />
|BH-K305 BATTLE HAWK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-7<ref>3039 p. 160</ref><br />
|ZEU-6S ZEUS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-7<ref>3039 p. 272</ref><br />
|FLS-7K FLASHMAN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-7<ref>TRO 3055U p. 70</ref><br />
|PPR-5S SALAMANDER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-7 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 92</ref><br />
|Zeu-9s Zeus | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-7i<ref>TRO 3055U p. 62</ref><br />
|FLC-8R FALCONER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-8a<ref>3039 p. 228</ref><br />
|HCT-3F HATCHETMAN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| tharHes Ares-8a<ref>3085 p. 76</ref><br />
|Hct-7s Hatchetman| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-8a<ref>TRO 3055U p. 40</ref><br />
|NGS-4S NIGHTSKY| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-8a <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 136</ref><br />
|BSW-X1 BUSHWACKER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-8a <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 114</ref><br />
|BGS-1T BARGHEST| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Ares-8a <ref>TRO 3050U p. 48</ref><br />
|hct-5s Hatchetman | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Digital Scanlok 347 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 202</ref><br />
|ALACORN MK VI HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Mars 1 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 54</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] condor hoVer tank (upgrade) | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Mars 1<ref>3039 p. 60</ref><br />
|CONDOR HEAVY HOVER TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Mars 1 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 48</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] saXon apc | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Mars-1<ref>3039 p. 246</ref><br />
|MON-67 MONGOOSE| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Mars5<ref>3039 p. 80</ref><br />
|ROMMEL/PATTON TANKS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| tharHes Mars8.2 with targeting Computer<ref>3085 p. 50</ref><br />
|Gürteltier Mbt| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Nav Shark<ref>3039 p. 36</ref><br />
|SEA SKIMMER HYDROFOIL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Star Shark<ref>3039 p. 102</ref><br />
|COM-2D COMMANDO| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TharHes Targitrack with Artemis <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 98</ref><br />
|MANTICORE HEAVY TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| tokasha B4-t&t<ref>3085 p. 156</ref><br />
|Dark Crow| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Tokasha B4-T&T <ref>TRO 3050U p. 128</ref><br />
|Ryoken | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| trackmaster VIII with Beagle Active Probe<ref>3085 p. 16</ref><br />
|Pandion combat WiGe| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TracTex Alpha-1 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 198</ref><br />
|MAULTIER HOVER APC| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Trannel OT73L <ref>TRO 3050U p. 180</ref><br />
|Rhino | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TransComm Beta with Beagle Active Probe <ref>TRO 3050U p. 212</ref><br />
|bl-6-Knt Black Knight | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TransComm WDS40A <ref>TRO 3050U p. 164</ref><br />
|Chaparral | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRSS Eagle Eye<ref>3039 p. 136</ref><br />
|HBK-4G HUNCHBACK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRSS Eagle Eye<ref>TRO 3055U p. 26</ref><br />
|SDR-9K VENOM| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRSS Eagle Eye <ref>TRO 3050U p. 20</ref><br />
|sdr-7M Spider | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRSS Eagle Eye <ref>TRO 3050U p. 42</ref><br />
|Vt-5M Vulcan | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRSS Eagle Eye <ref>TRO 3050U p. 58</ref><br />
|hbK-5M Hunchback | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRSS Eagle Eye Advanced T&T FCS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 156</ref><br />
|PAL-2 PALADIN| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRSS Eagle Eye w/ Beagle Active Probe. Guardian ECM and TAG<ref> TRO Phoenix p. 22</ref><br />
|OSTSCOUT OTT-9CS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRSS.2L3<ref>3039 p. 285</ref><br />
|OTT-7J OSTSCOUT| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRSS.2L3<ref>3039 p. 292</ref><br />
|OTL-4D OSTSOL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| tRSS.2l3 <ref>3085 p. 248</ref><br />
|otl-9r Ostsol| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 130</ref><br />
|SAVAGE COYOTE| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark 11-beta CWS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 118</ref><br />
|RABID COYOTE| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II<ref>TRO 3055U p. 110</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 168</ref><br />
|FIRE SCORPION| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 38</ref><br />
|ODIN SCOUT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 38</ref><br />
|ODIN SCOUT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| tRttS Mark II <ref>3085 p. 138</ref><br />
|Eldingar Hover sled| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II CWS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 178</ref><br />
|CANIS| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II CWS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 42</ref><br />
|MITHRAS LIGHT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II CWS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 42</ref><br />
|MITHRAS LIGHT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 50</ref><br />
|ZORYA LIGHT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS Mark II with Artemis IV FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 50</ref><br />
|ZORYA LIGHT TANK| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TRTTS-X Mk. I <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 154</ref><br />
|GREAT WYRM| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| TTS Model 3<ref>TRO 3055U p. 196</ref><br />
|SCYTHA | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| type 13e with targeting Computer<ref>3085 p. 152</ref><br />
|Goshawk ii| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Type IV Bloodhound T & T System <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 80</ref><br />
|AF1 ARCTIC FOX| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Type lid <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 162</ref><br />
|ISSUS | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| type V Bloodhound t&t System<ref>3085 p. 96</ref><br />
|Mnl-3l Mangonel| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Type V Bloodhound T&T System <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 80</ref><br />
|VR5-R VERFOLGER| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
| Valiant 2<ref>TRO 3055U p. 198</ref><br />
|KIRGHIZ | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Various<ref>3039 p. 82</ref><br />
|MONITOR NAVAL VESSEL| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| VeraTech MechTnT XVT20S <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 296</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] tr-a-6 toro | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Version Delta-II TTS(A) <ref>TRO 3050U p. 132</ref><br />
|Loki | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Version gamma-V <ref>3085 p. 148</ref><br />
|Parash| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Version Gamma-V TTS<ref>TRO 3055U p. 106</ref><br />
|VIXEN 4| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Version Gamma-V TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 168</ref><br />
|GRENDEL| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Version Gamma-V TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 152</ref><br />
|CORVIS| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Version Kappa-III TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 180</ref><br />
|THUNDER STALLION| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Version Kappa-III TTS <ref>TRO 3050U p. 138</ref><br />
|Man o’ War | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Version Omega IX TTS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 124</ref><br />
|BOWMAN| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Version Omega-V TTS <ref>TRO 3050U p. 126</ref><br />
|BlacK hawk | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Virtutrak S1<ref>3085 p. 30</ref><br />
|Regulator II Hovertank| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Virtutrak S1 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 86</ref><br />
|REGULATOR HOVERTANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
| Wasat Aggressor<ref>3039 p. 122</ref><br />
|HER-2S HERMES II| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Aggressor<ref>3039 p. 250</ref><br />
|HER-1A HERMES| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Aggressor <ref>TRO 3050U p. 40</ref><br />
|her-5s Hermes ii | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Aggressor <ref>TRO 3050U p. 98</ref><br />
|stK-5M Stalker | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Aggressor Type 5<ref>3039 p. 152</ref><br />
|ON1-K ORION| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Aggressor Type 5 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 82</ref><br />
|on1-M Orion | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Aggressor Type 5 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 106</ref><br />
|anh-2a Annihilator | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Aggressor Type 5 with OmniLink <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 88</ref><br />
|PI PERSEUS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Aggressor Type 8 <ref>TRO 3050U p. 110</ref><br />
|iMp-3e Imp | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] IS<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Agressor Type 6F with Omni Link <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 154</ref><br />
|SHV-O SHIVA | [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Watchdog W100<ref>TRO 3055U p. 50</ref><br />
|TMP-3M TEMPEST| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Watchdog W100 with Artemis IV FCS<ref>3085 p. 90</ref><br />
|oWr-3M Ostwar| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Watchdog W105 with A-trac<ref>3085 p. 20</ref><br />
|Tufana Hovercraft| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wasat Watchdog W120 with A-Trac <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 82</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] pkM-2c patriot | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wayne Marksman <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 218</ref><br />
|ST-8A SHOOTIST| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wayne SuperSight <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 64</ref><br />
|BLF-2У BLUE FLAME| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wayne SuperSight <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 84</ref><br />
|WHF-3B WHITE FLAME| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wentland Cyber-Track <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 72</ref><br />
|C-SK1 COSSACK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wentland Giga-Track <ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 104</ref><br />
|HEL-3D HELIOS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Winston Coral Snake (modified)<ref>TRO 3055U p. 146</ref><br />
|VKH-1 VOLKH| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Winston Coral Snake with CherrySeed Bullseye TAG<ref>TRO 3055U p. 22</ref><br />
|SCB-9A SCARABUS| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Winston Sidewinder<ref>TRO 3055U p. 60</ref><br />
|BNDR-01A BANDERSNATCH| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wolf Hunter MK VII <ref>TRO 3050U p. 124</ref><br />
|Fenris | [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]] Clan<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wolf’s Eye 7<ref>TRO 3055U p. 190</ref><br />
|JAGATAI | [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] | [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wunderland XXI-3 series<ref>[[Technical Readout 3039|TRO 3039]] p. 52</ref>|<br />
| STRIKER LIGHT TANK <br />
| [[:Category:Tech Base Innersphere|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wunderland XXV-2 with Artemis FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 104</ref><br />
|Pilum Heavy Tank| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Wunderland XXXV-1 Series with Artemis FCS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3058 Upgraded|TRO 3058U]] p. 82</ref><br />
|<br />
|STRIKER LIGHT TANK| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| WuSight 13.8 <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 238</ref><br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] korvin tank | [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
|-<br />
| XH558 Archer <ref>[[Technical Readout 3075|TRO 3075]] p. 302</ref><br />
| <br />
| [[Vulcan (AeroSpace Fighter)|VlC-5N '''Vulcan''']]<br />
| <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] Vlc-5n Vulcan<br />
| [[:Category:AeroSpace Fighter|(Aero)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| Xilex-2000<ref>3039 p. 68</ref><br />
| <br />
|BULLDOG MEDIUM TANK<br />
| <br />
| [[:Category:Inner Sphere Technology Base|(IS)]] <br />
| [[:Category:Combat Vehicle|(Vehicle)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! Model<br />
! Planet<br />
! Manufacturer<br />
! Mounted on<br />
! Tech Base<br />
! Vehicle Class<br />
! Type<br />
<br />
|-<br />
<br />
| York Y3-T&TS<ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 128</ref><br />
| <br />
| '''[[BLOOD KITЕ]]''' <br />
| <br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
| York Y2-T&TS<ref>[[Technical Readout 3060|TRO 3060]] p. 162</ref><br />
|<br />
| '''[[STOOPING HAWK]]'''<br />
| <br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base]]<br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|-<br />
| York Y5-T&TS <ref>[[Technical Readout 3067|TRO 3067]] p. 116</ref><br />
| <br />
| '''[[CRIMSON LANGUR]]'''<br />
| <br />
| [[:Category:Clan Technology Base|(Clan)]] <br />
| [[:Category:BattleMechs|('Mech)]]<br />
| [[Targeting and Tracking System|T&TS]] / [[Advanced Fire Control System|AFCS]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
* ''[[Total Warfare]]''<br />
* ''[[TechManual]]''<br />
* ''[[Technical Readout: 3050]]''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]<br />
[[Category:Equipment]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Policy_Talk:Canon&diff=179944Policy Talk:Canon2011-05-02T21:31:37Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Policy Talk:Canon/Archive 1|Archive 1 (July 2008-February 2009)]]<br />
<br />
==Total rewrite==<br />
After working on this for a very long time, here is my total rewrite of the Policy. It is the result of the discussions we had on this talk page (and others) and, of course, in no small part of my personal vision on how this issue should be adressed. I honestly do think that while the wording was changed significantly, the meaning is essentially the same and that I have adequately managed to cast our agreements into words. I have also elected to be bold and just implemented the change without re-starting the discussion (sorry Revanche and Scaletail), but I felt I should let the result speak for itself. If it turns out that there is no consensus to support my work, feel free to revert it. The missing templates can (and will) be created and added to the articles in question in a week's time or so, provided that the policy is accepted. Feel free to discuss. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 13:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Wow, Frabby, that's fantastic. I think it encapsulates all our prior discussions. It's been worth the wait :-). My only nitpick is that I think stating that 'BTW does not seek to define canon' is a bit confusing. I know what you mean, but I think it would be helpful if it is explicitly stated that we are adhering to CGL's own, internal canon policy. While ''we'' are not determining canon, it is also not left totally up to the judgment of the reader. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)<br />
::But it is, Scaletail. We are differentiating between fanon and official products. Whether an article (or a portion of it) is canon is left up solely to the reader. <br />
::Some past things (rules, characters, arcs, etc.) are considered apocryphal, others are now absorbed and the definition gets even further muddled by gold stars on the CBT forums. By backing away from ever attempting to 'answer' what is canon, we keep the harsh feelings muted/sated. Canon as defined by TPTB, is addressed in the article [[Canon]], rather than BTW's [[Policy:Canon]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Agree, Frabby: well done. I think its simpler, cleaner and easier to understand. I'm still not thrilled with the various colors used for the tags, but understand better now the intent and the irritant factor is low for me. I made a few minor copy-edit changes that don't change the character of the policy. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Moved the old discussion to the bottom of this Talk Page===<br />
...because that discussion is essentially obsolete with the new page. Not sure if it could/should be moved into an archive page, and I don't know how to do that anyways. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Archived this for you. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Default to "Canon" or "official"?===<br />
Revanche marked his last edit to the page as a minor one, and mostly he cleaned up the wording. However, there is one bit that is not as minor as it might appear at first: In the second part of the policy, he changed the text from "BTW articles are considered to discuss '''canonical''' issues by default" to read "BTW articles are considered to discuss '''official''' issues by default". While I can see where he's coming from, especially considering that the policy is not to decide on what is what, he has actually put his finger on the weak spot of the entire policy: Namely that it should not strictly use ''any'' tags in the first place; applying the tags does some sorting already, even though it follows the official guidelines. See, if the articles would cover "official" sources by default then the "Apocrypha" tag would be superfluous, as all apocryphal material is always official. Only fan-made stuff is not. It is really the (clearly) canonical stuff that needs to additional tag. Therefore, for lack of a better wording I suggest reverting "official" to "canonical". Please discuss. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You've hit on my problems withe the tags, right there. I feel that -due to the nature of the universe being told from many different in-character perspectives- almost everything is apocryphal and where one thing is stated to be true from one perspective (say Capellan), another perspective may indicate its lack of truth (say FedSuns). The genecaste is a good example of this. Even TPTB claim whatever you want in your game works, they just provide the backbone from which to work. To me, official is anything that is or has been licensed, even though it may no longer be valid. For example, some of the BattleDroid 'Mechs no longer exist or in the manner in which they were produced. They are official, but -due to their current nature- would enjoy one of the 'Apocrypha' tags. <br />
:I saw the inclusion of any tags other than fanon as possibly allowing for further digression as to what is canon or not (indeed, we've already had one 'contributor' claim his fanon is just as valid here as any of the official stuff and therefore not needing a fanon tag). Instead, I prefer to leave it un-judged, other than 'official' or 'fanon'. Those lines are quite clear for the vast majority of us. <br />
:I compromised when it came to the tags, because...why fight something like this? But calling something canon is going to confuse our mission statement in regards to that, and I say that because I am confused as to what is canon when we try and determine it. That's why I changed it from 'canon' to 'official' because I truly thought this is what you meant and that 'canon' had slipped in. Otherwise, the title of that section ("Unofficial material must be segregated from official material") seems to argue differently than what is stated in the paragraph itself. If its not clear to me...--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::We could go by different way stating this. Old Canon? Obsolete Canon? BattleDroids 'mechs for instance are being introduced into canon material by way of Age of War era material. Battledroids themselves came out before BT Universe was finalized. Personally, since Battledroids was earliest game, hasn't been reflected in canon materials until recently. Like the unseens of old, they too are not seen. Thus these re-imaging now introduced. If you trying classify this I'd say go with pre-Battletech if its relating directly with Battledroids material. As for other things, such a Genecaste, listing them as [[Canon Rumor]] arguable best way to go. Its canon, but its not solided information.Its too bad we can't having rating on how reliable information is printed now. Example of the Jihad Secrets: The Blake Documents: All 50 Divisions of the Word of Blake are listed. With gleems on what their doing from perspective of intelligence report. Which means is not rock solid, but darn close. Maybe we should have rating system 0-9 on reliability of source material on somethings? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::No, with all respect due to you, but no. We, the Editors of BTW, should never be the ones to determine what is canon and what is not. Everyone has an opinion, and you'd have such a scale being railed against on each and every place it was used to rate an article. That very idea would cause people to say, "BattleTechWiki says that Event Alpha or Weapon Tech Beta is Canon Level High. They don't know what they're talking about." We don't want to be a source of opinionated articles, but ones that are well-researched and fact-based. [[Policy:Verifiability|Verifiability]] is on the verge of being a policy and neutrality is one of our [[BattleTechWiki:Five pillars| Five Pillars]]. Using an opinion-based rating system would detract from the verifiability we strive for and the neutrality we demand. Sorry, but I cannot back such a method. (Too strong? {{Emoticon| ;) }})<br />
:::As for utilizing differing degrees of canoncity...simplicity is the key. Anytime we have to explain to each of ourselves (major contributors) what we think is canon and by what age or degree, we're removing the simplicity of the policy for the average or less-active editors. <br />
:::I think, Wrangler, the very concept we're discussing here may be forking, as an example of what Frabby is bringing up for discussion. He and I are simply debating the use of the words 'official' and 'canon' in the Canon policy, rather than the need to expand the policy as a whole. (Take a look at the archived discussion to see how detailed and lost we got in the initial discussion, before it was cemented it in my February policy and then simplified with Frabby's November one.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::I think you both misunderstood me, in different ways. :)<br />
::::Wrangler, you fell into the trap that I tried to adress within the Canon article. Some canon only exists in the form of [[Canon Rumor]]s. But even these are canon, being rumors witin the universe. Credibility is never an issue. Instead, the question is whether or not a given real-world product can be said to officially contribute its content to the shared BT universe. Technically, there is only canon and non-canon, but the apocryphal articles stand out as special because they are neither clearly canon nor non-canon. As for BattleDroids stuff such as the Ostroc mk II, I'd consider it apocryphal (and I have been meaning to write its article for some time).<br />
::::Revanche, what I tried to say within the policy was that an article needs no tag (i.e. default) if there is nothing to suggest that its subject is anything but canon. Conversely, the tags are needed (exception to the rule) where that is not the case - apocrypha and non-canon/fanon. I think it needs to be pointed out in the respective articles that these have issues with canonicity, which I adressed through the tags. So in this sense, the tags don't actually decide something, but point out where there might be an issue (which is not applicable to most sources and subjects). Phew. Words fail me, I hope I brought my point across and perhaps somebody else can find the right words to put into the policy. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Ouch, hope i recover from that mental trap. So are you guys going come up with tags to point out...hmmm articles that may that are canon, but may not be straight truth? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Wrangler, check out where the policy addresses the "Canonicity" section of articles to answer this question of your's. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Frabby, I have no problem with the tags, and have included a new one of my own (to solve a problem where fan stories and articles were being lumped into the wrong categories when the fanon tag was used). To be honest, I'm not 100% onboard with the need of the tags, since the inclusion of the "Canonicity" section could address this, but I'm not heartbroken about it, either. <br />
:::::So, with that cleared up, can you take another stab at the original question you posed, about the use of 'canon' vice 'official' in the policy paragraph? Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I would say that the policy needs to be "BTW articles are considered to discuss '''canonical''' issues by default", using the "Apocrypha" tag to denote Official Materiel that is Not Part of the Canon. IMO, the use of Official and Canon as synonyms is contraindicated.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Pics from video games==<br />
I know that the video games aren't considered canon, but what about using them as a source of pictures for the articles? Obviously, this would only apply to pictures that don't contradict anything (including the existing picture, if any), but it seems like some detailed, full-color shots might help some of the articles. --[[User:Artanis|Artanis]] 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you give examples of where/in which articles you would want to insert pictures from computer games? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Mostly the ones where the existing pics are really not that great right now, especially the front-on wireframe-ish ones like the [[Uller]] and [[Summoner_(Thor)|Thor]]. Also, pretty much anything in the [[MechCommander_(Video_Game)|MechCommander]] intro video would be worth at least considering. --[[User:Artanis|Artanis]] 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think there's any problem with this, so long as the game the image is taken from is linked in the pictures description in the article. This tells readers that the image is from a video game, so it shouldn't be too confusing as far as canon versus non-canon is concerned. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 22:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::: I was quite fond of the MechCommander graphics myself. The only question is that those illustrations generally only apply to the Primary configurations in the case of omnimechs. You can refit the mech however you wanted and it would still look the same. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fanon tag color ==<br />
<br />
A new point of discussion: the fanon tags, to me, give off the appearance of a warning by using the color red, rather than the vibe of a notice or announcement. I've had to re-add the tag to the [[Suomi Warders]] stories. Though [[User:Seth|Seth]] didn't indicate why he took them off, in the act of creating a fanon warning tag for his user page, I reflected that we reserve the color red for the higher levels of warning for a reason. The use of the color on fanon tags may give off the feeling we're warning the reader (and the author) that there is something wrong with 'this page.'<br><br />
I'd like to suggest we utilize a different color. Maybe white or Sarna gold? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"<br />
|-<br />
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived discussion of the included proposal. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''<br />
|-<br />
! style="background-color: #FFFFE0; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |<br />
<br />
== Meta-sources ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] and myself (and now, [[User:Doneve|Doneve]]) are presently in a [[Talk:Kallon Industries|discussion]] with an IP who -quoting the [[Policy:Canon#Fanon_content|Canon policy's fanon content section]]- complains about Doneve's use of ''[[Objective Raids: 3067]]'' as a source. I jumped in with support for Dmon's argument regarding the facts being true, but only had the 2nd of the Notes in OR:3067's article to support BTW 'policy' regarding using non-official sources.<br />
<br />
I propose adding the following statement to the Canon policy's Articles about non-canonical products section, under the banner (with a 'see also' comment in the Fanon content section):<br />
<br />
{{Quote|BattleTechWiki acknowledges the existence of some sources of information that are not official but, like BTW, do the necessary research and compiling to present official and canon facts regarding the BattleTech universe. These sources are known as 'meta-sources'. Only a select few have been reviewed and determined by consensus to be accepted as sources for BTW articles. They may not be used as references within the articles, because they are not official; instead, the original, official sources are required to be cited. These currently accepted meta-sources are: ''[[Objective Raids: 3067]]'', the [http://isatlas.teamspam.net/ IS Atlas] and Classic BattleTech's cartographer [[Øystein Tvedten]]'s [http://home.ifi.uio.no/~oysteint/ISMP.html Star League Defense Forces Mapping Agency] (as well as the other released maps of his found in the article about him). <br />
<br />
As stated in the tag, details regarding the accepted use as a meta-source can be found on each of the relevant pages.}}<br />
<br />
Comments requested. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I don't think we should accept meta-sources as sources, because it would make BTW a "only" meta-meta source so to speak, and dilute/devaluate the BTW content. Do as wikis do: Research your content and quote correct sources. Meta-sources can be useful to check if you overlooked something, but they are just as biased and prone to errors as BTW and using them as a source would only aggravate that problem. And what's the gain? There is nothing a meta-source author found that we cannot find as well, and quote for reference. In fact, well-researched articles with references is ''the'' great strength of the wiki approach. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Absolutely agree with you that original sources are preferred over meta-sources. I really don't have a good, solid argument to support the use of meta-sources, other than they have already consolidated the official material into a format easily digestable and incorporateble. We need to have a policy that addresses peoples concerns (such as noted here) when someone does use a meta-source: my answer is 1) it is not encouraged, but not dis-allowed, 2) it may not be cited as a reference itself, and 3) it needs to be accepted by the BTW community as a trustworthy meta-source. <br />
<br />
::Otherwise, if we do not allow the use of meta-sources, and we suspect they are being used, what is our policy? Do we delete and admonish? Do we push the Editor to imemdiately follow up with official sources or face deletion? In fact, I see insertion of facts that originate from a trustworthy meta-source to be even more valuable than facts that are otherwise uncited. The end goal: yes, every fact is cited is preferred. But, barring that, a meta-source at least is a step in the right direction. Similar example: if I see a fact in Article A, here on BTW, that is uncited that I don't have any doubts about, I feel free to use that fact to build Article B (also uncited). As BTW is a meta-source, it is a similar analogy.<br />
<br />
::I'm not looking to create a separate policy regarding meta-sources, but for the reason detailed above, I think we should have a supporting position for ''certain'' meta-sources, since if the facts are true, they should not be deleted. Otherwise, the logic extends equally to all uncited facts on the project. I think in a black-n-white perspective, your position is much stronger, but there are shades to be considered if we out-right state meta-sources are not acceptable. (My head is a bit muddy; am I being clear?) --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::If I understand you right, you're suggesting a preferential treatment of certain meta-sources. I am opposed to this idea, because the choice which meta-sources to treat preferentially is in itself a totally subjective process. All meta-sources should be treated as equally suspect no matter how trustworthy with one notable exception - BTW itself.<br />
:::If meta-sources are being used, I suggest treating this just as if no references were given. If doubtful information is given, insert a <reference needed> tag. Meta-sources cannot serve as reference, so the author would need to dig up whatever primary source the meta-source took its info from.<br />
:::What I am concerned about in this context is that editors might be tempted to sloppy research if they can hide behind a meta-source. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree, Revanche. OR:3067 is not a compilation of information culled from other sources in the same way that BTW is supposed to be. There are certain assumptions that are made, especially with regard to the production of components. My specific example: Because of my work here, I had done the legwork to find out that the ''Sagittare's'' weapons were produced under license on the same world, a factoid that was dropped in HB:HD. Unaware of this (or perhaps having done it before that book was produced), MadCap listed the production for those weapons at their original site. I informed him and he changed it.<br />
::::I greatly respect what he and the community have done with that project. In many ways, it mirrors what we do here. Nonetheless, OR:3067 is not a canon or licensed source and should not be granted any status other than "fan-made". If it exists in OR:3067, it should exist in a canon source. Knowing that should help an editor narrow done the original source of the information, not replace it. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Understood. Its clear that the majority don't feel meta-sources should be authorized by BTW. I won't try to pigeonhole a compromise. However, I do ask for your policy suggestions on what the answer should be when a) its clear someone is only using a meta-source, and/or b) when someone challenges the inclusion of material that clearly comes from a meta-source. They are two different things. I'm just opposed to deleting anything added by another Editor which I feel is probably right, but is uncited and most likely originating from a meta-source. Likewise, how will/would you answer [[65.190.30.41]]'s [[Talk:Kallon Industries|concerns]]? (Frabby, you addressed his mis-assumptions, but not his concerns about the use of the information from a meta-source.) Appreciate the guidance. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::I 100% agree with Frabby that citing a fan-made "book", even one as well-done as MadCap's, should be akin to not citing a source. Like any other unsourced information that seems accurate, it should be tagged as needing a citation. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 03:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: Wake up, a little less congested, lot more rested, clearer mind. <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> is what it needs. I guess I got hung up on wanting to retain statements I knew to be true, and wanted to resist any urge for people to revert wholesale additions to BTW because from a semi-trusted source. But, if the complaining person doesn't like a particular statement, they can tag it as needing a citation and then delete it after a certain amount of time has past. It is not my responsibility to ensure it gets deleted (or protected) if someone else tags it, which I think was a chore I felt myself being painted into.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::One question which should be raised in this discussion. As all canon BattleTech sources cite authors and contributors, why not consider meta-sources written by the same authors. For instance, Chris Wheeler is cited in several books as a fact checker (at the very least). If Catalyst Games trusts BattleTech Universe canon with him, he should be a reliable source, no? Should we not consider [http://isatlas.teamspam.net/ IS Atlas], his website, as being very reliable?<br />
:::I should think citation of such meta-sources would be akin to our current policy towards electronic posts on official websites ([http://www.classicbattletech.com Classic BattleTech], [http://www.catalystgames.com Catalyst Games], etc.) and author/contributor posts on message boards, both of which I have seen cited in the past.<br />
:::If you agree, I would propose that all meta-sources written directly by authors and fact checkers for BattleTech be considered as legitimate source material.--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Strongly disagree. Only that is Canon which was published as Canon in a canonical source. People like Chris "Chinless" Wheeler, "Oystein" Tvedten and Mike "Cray" Miller (and many others) are very productive in their off-time. The catch is that in their off-time, they're not in any official capacity and anything they privately produce that isn't sanctioned or solicited by Herb is just Fanon. This, I feel, is a very important point that cannot be stressed enough: Only sources (as in publications) are canonical; writers (as persons) are not.<br />
::::Meta-sources are totally unofficial. As long as they're merely faithfully reproducing canonical information, they are not original source and therefore not required as a reference in the first place; conversely, where meta-sources are the only source, they are non-canonical. For example, the IS Atlas cannot provide the canonical XY-coordinates for most periphery systems simply because those coordinates were never published in canon. Yet the IS Atlas provides coordinates. Don't make the mistake to assume they're canonical.<br />
::::Finally, no, meta-sources are ''not'' reliable. In most cases (Sarna BTW, OR:3067, IS Atlas, etc.) these sources were produced by dedicated fans. But that doesn't rule out errors, like the dead-wrong plancements of many systems on Sarna.net (take [[Götterdämmerung]] as an example). An oversight or misspelling in a canonical source can become canon, such as the misspelled name of [[New Hati]]. But an error in a meta-source remains just plainly wrong.<br />
::::In my opinion, dedicated work on this wiki (like on any meta-source) means you go and find the original canonical quote/reference for whatever data is in question. Don't hide behind a meta-source of unverified veracity. Check the (right) sources and use these as a reference. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::Those are all great points, Frabby. I couldn't agree more. I would like to point out that things authors post on the message board are cited because they are clarifications or errata. If there are places where this is not the case, bring it up in a discussion. The CBT website is published by CGL, so it can be considered a canon source, except where they state otherwise.--[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 14:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Consensus Wrap-up===<br />
Reviewing this discussion that ended in early February, it appears consensus has led to the following points: <br />
#Meta-sources, defined as those projects, whether they be done by fans or CBT official producers acting in an unofficial capacity, are not to be recognized as canon/official.<br />
#As such, meta-sources are not to be referenced on BTW as source material and any facts attributed to these sources may have that citation replaced with a '''<nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki>''' tag.<br />
#It is also noted that where CBT forums reference errata or clarifications by the official staff, these are considered to be acceptable citations for BTW references, as long as they occur in a clearly official capacity, such as in the Catalyst Game Labs Interaction boards.<br />
<br />
====Consensus Support/Non-Support==== <br />
Please state either your '''support''' or '''non-support''' for this consensus wrap-up, per the listed "Consensus Wrap-up" points: <br />
*'''Support''': I withdraw my motion to add an official acceptance of certain (or any) meta-sources, as not being in the best interests of BTW's reputation as a reliable meta-source in its own right. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Support''': Nothing to add to Revanche's excellent wrap-up. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Support''' Seems reasonable. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 12:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
'''Consensus Summary''': Proposal (''per consensus'') passes. Closed on 26 March 2010<br />
|-<br />
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived discussion of the included proposal. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Old Game Rules ==<br />
How are we going to treat out-dated rulebooks? Do we consider them as canon? I often see sources such as Maximum Tech and Master Rules refered to. Should these references be replaced with the TW/TM/TO/SO when possible? Should old rules be present on the site at all?<br />
--[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 14:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:It really depends upon the context. If a rule has changed, an an article is referencing the rule, then I'd image it should point to the current book. But, if it hasn't changed, then it can reference ''all'' the books, so that any reader can use what they have on-hand. Simple answer: old citations should not be blindly updated with new ones. Do you have an example in question?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Since some players whom aren't update, they may be using the older names for rules. Such as Level 3 for instance. Some players maybe still USING older Battletech Master Rules Revised and Maximum Tech, that should be treated as they are. Level 3's replacement rules, Advanced and Experimental Tech are treated differiently since they split up Level 3's rules up and add new ones. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::Yes, Wrangler correctly guessed that caught my attention, talk about Level 3 rules. There's also the issue of potential confusion caused by references to old rules. Maybe old rule stuff should be marked in some way? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 16:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::I'd be open to ideas as to how. But, rules aren't so much our focus as universe is. We try and shy away from discussion of the actual rules and get into the character of the universe. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::In that case, should all rules be separated out from fluff? Something like this: [[Dual Cockpit]]? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 18:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::I kinda like it. I think it needs to be a less bold color (maybe the Sarna gold?). But, I'm also of the belief we have to answer the question: is it necessary? Between you, me and every other Editor here on BTW (keep it quiet {{Emoticon| ;) }}), I'd like us to approach BTW as in-character Sarna (Sarna University?) researchers from far in BT's future, looking back on these events leading up to the 32nd century, uncovering historical data. Therefore, things like yor break-out (from character) ''would'' be appropriate. However, if we're simply 21st century Real World fans, then that kind of break-out is not necessary (it can be argued).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::My own choice would be a reddish hue. Just wasn't motivated to try to find the perfect color. Something that makes it more fade into background rather than stand out would be preferable. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Take a look at my edit. I'd be interested in seeing your color concept.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
''Associated Rules''<br />
This is an out-of-universe game rule.<br />
<br />
'''OLD:''' This is a game rule that is no longer valid in the current ruleset.<br />
</div><br />
::::::::: Looks better than gray, but I still favor red for some reason. Maybe it's because yellow is the Davionista color? See red example box above. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::I understand your (possible) dislike for the color because of nationalistic styles, but I'm working solely from the perspective of what fits the established site colors. I was actually thinking of even making it a darker yellow/gold (#FC0) (see your above example), but think the original example (#FFFFE0) is a better fit (less glaring). I just want to find something that stands out from the 'character' of the article, but doesn't distract the reader as uncharacteristic of the site. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::I know you like red, Neufeld, but please don't use it. Anyone who's red/green colorblind (like my Dad) will have a hard time reading the content.<br />
:::::::::::If you absolutely must use red, please use the [http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/contrast-analyser.html Contrast Analyzer] to be sure your content can be seen.<br />
:::::::::::Rev if you're getting stuck on the color to use, you may want to check out the [http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/color-blend/ Color Blender] tool that Eric Meyer put on his site. It's saved me a lot of time. (It shows that #FFF1B9 and #FFECA2 might be good colors for the note background color. Then use standard #FFCC00 for border color.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::I like the lighter yellow much better. The gold one is too bold. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 12:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::..."you may want to check out the [http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/color-blend/ Color Blender] tool..." Oooh, shiny. Thanks. I'm liking #FFE670; its a blend of the soft yellow in the left background and the bold gold of the site. Anyone else? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I'm extremely busy right now and don't really have time to contribute right now, but I have to chime in here: Personally, I disagree with Revanche's notion of keeping BTW in-universe (how would you justify OOC articles like [[Jordan Weisman]] or [[List of BattleTech products]]?). That aside, I wonder if we could create a Game Rules template for what you're going. It would provide a prominent frame outside of the normal article text, possibly save a lot of typing, and help by giving a pre-made format for noting down rules. Variables should be ''Source|Brief rules description''. I'll revisit this when I have more time, give me a week. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::LOL. Yeah, you're my primary opponent to that concept (in-character researchers), but we'll address that in a different setting. However, it sounds like you're in agreement with the idea of breaking out rules in the above style, but have a 'quick-start' idea for soing so. I'm interested in your idea.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::I'd like to offer up [[Gauss Rifle]] as an example of the way I handled this. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::The reason I'm not partial to all italics is that the game rules material doesn't segregate itself well enough from the overall article, especially when it is likely there are other aspects of an article that may also use italics. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To recap a little. I think we have agreed that rules should be put into into a box, and that part is mostly down to decide upon a color.<br />
However, what should we do about the old vs new rules? That still needs to be discussed. A page that really shows the problem is [[Cockpit Command Console]]. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 14:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:How about with bulleted items, per the original source? Example:<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
*'''''BattleTech Compendium''''', p. 47: Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.<br />
*'''''Maximum Tech''''', p 49: Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.<br />
*'''''BattleTech Master Rules''''', p. 42: Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.<br />
*'''''Total Warfare''''', p. 247: Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.<br />
*'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''', p. 149: provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).<br />
</div><br />
:As always, Editors only add then information they have direct access to and care to support with source. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Well, I'm not too hot on that format. While a bulleted list might be the way to go, there's the problem that it doesn't clearly show which set of rules are the most current. Also the way the sources are listed seems contrary to the way we cite stuff on this site. Maybe more like this:<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
*''BattleTech Compendium'': Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*''Maximum Tech'': Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.(ref here)<br />
*''BattleTech Master Rules'': Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
<br />
<br />
* Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''': provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).(ref here)<br />
</div><br />
::(ref here) means a normal reference. Here I have split the box in two parts, old and new. Second, I have reserved bold for current rules. Third, since Total Warfare and Tech Manual are the current base rules, I have chosen not not state their name explicitly in the box, just in the reference. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 18:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::I like your use of bolding to indicate current rules, with a space between active and inactive sources. Two questions:<br />
:::#Why not list the name of the current references at the beginning? A) it provides consistency between the methods (less confusing to Editors making the changes from 'active' to 'outdated') and B) if/when a source becomes outdated, it is simpler to move down and remove the bolding code (<nowiki>'''</nowiki>).<br />
:::#What about putting the active rules on top, so that is what is first seen by the reader (afterall, most important information should always come first)?<br />
:::My example (a change on your's):<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
Active Rules:<br />
*'''''Total Warfare''''': Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''': provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).(ref here)<br><br><br />
Outdated Rules:<br />
*''BattleTech Compendium''': Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*''Maximum Tech'': Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.(ref here)<br />
*''BattleTech Master Rules'': Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
</div><br />
:::I'm liking this. I think we're making considerable progress. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::Yes I agree on your changes. We still need to decide on headings. Level 2 for rules, and level 3 for Active Rules and Outdated Rules? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::I'd say Level 2, since it wouldn't be a subset of anything else (except maybe for ==Notes==). There's no need to go into Level 3, is there, if we use the box below the heading? (I.e., have both sets in the same box.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::Well, I'd say that the headings in the box needs a bit of highlight:<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
'''Active Rules''':<br />
*'''''Total Warfare''''': Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''': provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).(ref here)<br><br><br />
'''Outdated Rules''':<br />
*''BattleTech Compendium''': Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*''Maximum Tech'': Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.(ref here)<br />
*''BattleTech Master Rules'': Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
</div><br />
::::::like this. Also should the Rules heading be in or outside the box? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Sorry for the delay. I'm of two minds on that: one is that the heading should be inside the box for completeness' sake. On the other is that now the opening box code has to be placed before the section heading, which means anyone editing the code itself has to open the edit section before it. That seems minor to me, though, for once the box is in place (by an experienced Editor), its in place. <br />
:::::::How do you feel about it? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I think that it would look better inside the box, but it's not something that would bother me if it was outside. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::Agree with Neufeld. I have to say you've made a terrific job here, and Rev's concerns seem minor. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 09:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Game Data in articles ==<br />
<br />
''While related, this is a separate discussion from how rules are to be presented (above). Please continue in that discussion, as well.''<br />
<br />
I'd like to discuss the 'character' of articles dealing with in-universe subjects ('Mechs, bios, etc.), when rules and gaming information are included. I wish I could remember the location of the discussion, but I thought one Editor responded well to another Editor's query about items in infoboxes by saying we tended to shy away from actual gaming data (armor amount, superstructure, etc.), but describing them as they might be discussed in a ''Jane's'' narrative (ex: "light on armor", "built with an extremely strong hull", etc.). Originally, this has been true, but done without a policy regarding this. Now, largely in part due to requests to me to include them, the infoboxes come out and explicitly state this data, which (IMO) robs both the in-universe encyclopedic character of the article and potential material to discuss in the narrative sections of the article.<br />
<br />
What I'm asking for here is a conversation as to how we want articles to be used: are they TRO-like discussions of the fictional subject, are they real world encyclopedic metasources for both in-universe and gaming data? Do we want to strip gaming data out of these articles? Do we want to be more inclusive of it?<br />
<br />
I'm going to weigh in following the first comments made by others, but please be aware of two points: 1) what we decide here does have far-reaching implications (it might be its own policy) and, 2) (more for Frabby) I'm not attempting to pursue my interest in making Editors 'in-character' Sarna researchers with this discussion. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Please comment:<br />
: I feel that using in-universe measurements like tonnage, speed and cost are OK and should be included. Border cases are things BV, SI points and such. I would prefer to include these also, but would not feel strongly about those. Consider for example [[Cheetah]]: Everything in first part of infobox is OK. In second part: Mass, Frame, Power Plant, Fuel weight, Armament, Comm system, Targeting system and heat sinks are all things someone in-universe could learn, and should be kept. Structural Integrity, Fuel points and BV are game stats that wouldn't be represented in the same way in-universe, and hence debatable. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 14:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::And the fine point that must be understood is that BV listings on here will probably be well-fought for, as we've had them on here almost since day 1 (of the first 'Mech article). From there, then, comes the argument, "If not [my favorite game stat], why BV?" And I don't see any easy way to segregate game stats in the same way as game rules (as in the above discussion) with out it being awkward.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Good comments, Neufeld. At this point, we're just having a discussion and I feel it lacks enough involvement. Should we pursue a policy about article 'character'? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::: My personal position is this : Anything short of blatant copyright infringement is fair game. I believe that more is, in fact, good. In answer to Rev's questions above, I say the articles in question can include all those things. However, as I usually do, I will follow the concensus. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::: Rev, you are probably thinking of CJ's comments at [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Change_format.3F]]. I have made the argument many times in various places as well. That said, I will argue until I'm blue in the fingers for keeping BV because it's one of the things here that I actually find ''useful''. When I'm running a game based on BV, I can make sure that every player has an official document that lists BV for every unit allowed, or I can just tell them "go to Sarna".<br />
:::: I think OOC information is where InfoBoxes excel precisely because they are separate from the body of the text. I'm pretty happy with the balance we have now, and would argue that any policy created should enshrine the status quo. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
===Style Box===<br />
''Copied from [[User talk:Mbear#Style_Box|Mbear's talk page]]''<br />
<br />
Hy Mbear, is it usefull to add a style box, like the Game Rules in the Technology section, to the Military unit articles, it is a idea, any thought, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 19:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:At the moment I'd say no because AFAIK we haven't officially started adding the style box to the Game Rules articles. I'd prefer to finish one category (technology) completely and then start on the next thing.<br />
:I also don't know where you'd put the styled box on the Military Unit pages.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Take a look on this [[21st Division (Word of Blake)]], only a example.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::Oh. Well. That looks OK to me, but we should probably discuss it before you just start doing it. I'll copy this page to the [[Policy_Talk:Canon#Game_Data_in_articles]] section to see what happens.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Citing BV ==<br />
Whether an Editor is trying to complete an empty field for BV1 or BV2, there are plenty of vehicles (''et al'') that have yet to have those values canonized, via publishing in a master list or on the subject pages of a TRO. One Editor recently compiled BV based on the use of an non-official program (either SSW or MW) and cited it as such. The citation was reverted by another Editor, for that reason.<br />
That got me thinking: is BV only canon when actually published? My argument is no, it can be canon when properly determined via the canon rules for BV determination. I propose we accept as official any citation that uses the specific ruleset for that BV version (1 or 2). For example, <br />
*<nowiki><ref>''TechManual'', pp. 302-304, "Calculating 'Mech BV"</ref></nowiki><br />
Now, this obviously means some errors creep in, if an Editor is unable to correctly calculate, but that is true of errors anywhere on the wiki. In that case, and especially because the calculation section is referenced (rather than a direct source), other Editors are free to change the BV to either what they determine the BV to be (great if 2 or more Editors arrive at the same number independently) or as the BV is released in a direct source. <br><br />
Comments?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Well, I considered starting up discussion on this subject myself. I just wanted to wait for the rules and year stuff to be done, so the discussion wouldn't distract from those. There's also the cost of units that's in the same boat as BV. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 12:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Well, as conversation seems to have paused at the other two (semi-related) discussions, I'd be interested in your POV on what I've proposed. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::Considering things that can be calculated, I'm of the opinion that rules trumps values given that might contain printing errors. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 13:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::You and I agree in generalities, but I'm not sure I support this. In theory, I'd agree with you, but until it is either addressed with errata or acknowledged to be wrong, published BV would fall under our Canon policy. (However, if consensus leads to to an exception in this case, I'll follow).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::The point is [[W:Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]]. I can verify that the BV printed on page 103 of ''Combat Operations'' is the same as the one in the article. It is substantially more difficult to run the numbers myself to come up with the BV that you got. What if we get different numbers? Who is right? Obviously there is a correct answer, but what if somebody doesn't understand they are doing it wrong? This would also be considered ''original research'', meaning that I can't possibly verify the information you put in the article, because you did it yourself.<br />
:::::Yes, there are always printing errors. In general, when that occurs, it is well documented on the CBT forums and TPTB quickly approve errata for it. To argue that your math or the math of a fan-made program is better than that in official publications is disingenuous at best. As an example, I know for a fact that the BV spit out by The Drawing Board was occasionally wrong. Not always, but often enough that I didn't trust it. No, like every other piece of information in this wiki, BV and cost should have cited sources from official publications. That there is a formula that determines both of those pieces of information does not mean they should be treated differently. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::It will be hard to prove what the calculated BV is without the amounts of armor, number of heat sinks, and tons of ammo for the guns that is not mentioned in most of the articles. Or I should say that without this information it is rather difficult for an editor to make any checks on the calculations on somebodies work. While yes there are cannon rules for calculating BV and cost without the full amounts there can be no proof for the numbers given. Other then this objection, I do agree that calculated BV's can be used because the BV's of every object on a 'mech et. al. has been given in a source that is cannon. Hope I made myself understood. [[User:Underadarkhand|Underadarkhand]] 13:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Calculations should ''never'' be based on what's provided in this wiki, a meta-source. No, any calculations, in lieu of printed BV, must be based ''solely'' on official sources, using the current formulas (if we even allow this route).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::If the discussion of precedence between canon and rules' formulation continues, so be it. But, how do people feel about utilizing the rules in the absence of printed BV (when properly identified as having come from the rules)? I'm of the mind that the math could be presented on the discussion page, to allow for double-checking.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::Keep the canon policy intact; separate the information. Create a separate section for fan-calculated BVs that is clearly labeled as such. As per the existing canon policy, just make it clear what is official and what is not. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::Could we create a BV computation template to put on the discussion page? Base it on the TechManual formula for BV 2. Then we just enter the values in the template. Once that's computed, post the completed worksheet on the discussion page for people to double-check. I'm thinking the template would be a worksheet, kind of like we have for the "Quickly create a Canon Mech" articles.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::I think it needs to be mentioned that BV is something derivative, i.e. not something that can be decided. Instead, it is calculated from other canonical data. As such, I don't think you could call BV itself "canonical". Most importantly, it doesn't require a source (imho) because it's just the application of a formula, not something TPTB can really decide or change at a whim. I would even suggest removing it from BTW entirely, but it seems others do use it a lot for sorting and comparing, and so BV seems to have some use here after all. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::When I started forming the policies and templates here (all by my lonesome...where the ''h#11'' were you guys?!), I was just looking to get some consistency and value into the wiki; we didn't have anything approaching a core concept yet for the overall project. However, if I had known then that we'd be developing a kind of Jane's-type character here, I would have pushed more for in-universe only material, which would have negated the adding of BVs. It does appear readers enjoy the comparative and categorical benefits from using BVs, so...<br />
::::::I would like to support the use of Editor-calculated BVs where direct BVs are unavailable. Mbear's idea of a template seems reasonable to me, because then it can easily be checked by others for validity. Before we even entertain the idea of nixing Editor-calculated BVs, I'd like to give Mbear the opportunity to provide us one for an example. (Also, when a BV can be overwritten by a canon source, then it would be, no holds barred. Even if the calculation indicates otherwise.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::I am agreeable to Mbear's solution, assuming it's feasible. As long as the info can be verified to be correct, so a link to the talk page section would be fine. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Mbear, are you up to crafting such an example template for a class of vehicle? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::Yes. I'll start working on a Mech template tonight after work.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::This is proving to be more difficult than I anticipated, so I don't think I'll have the awesomely short turnaround time I had on some other projects. Please bear with me.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 11:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Defense part is (mostly) done. [[User:Mbear/BVWorksheet]] shows what I have so far. (Yes, the columns need to line up better and it's not wikified. Work in progress.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Kind of sort of completed the template page. Please review [[User:Mbear/BVWorksheet]] to see what I have. Comments appreciated.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::My first thought was, "Wow...this may be much more complicated than we have allowed for." However, Mbear's template seems rather all inclusive. Before we baptize this template idea, I think maybe we should all take it for a test run and compute the same 'Mech, see if we get the same answers. If the current Wardens of the site can't compute BV2 in a clear manner, even with Mbear's template, we may want to shelve the idea of anything other than officially-provided numbers.<br />
::The template isn't to teach people how to compute BV2, but to show their computations leading to it, in order to check for errors.<br />
::So, who is willing to try the template on their own talk pages (probably a subpage, like Mbear has done here)? I propose the [[Raven|Raven RVN-3L]] from ''[[Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade]]'' (chosen randomly). We need ''at least'' 2 others (I'm the third).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:One other thing: As Nuefled pointed out on the [[User_talk:Mbear/BVWorksheet|discussion page]], this sheet doesn't include the [http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual TechManual Errata] yet. I just wanted to get a sample done so we could have something concrete to discuss.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::The TechManual Errata has been integrated into the Worksheet.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:And I'm willing to compute BV for a 'Mech, but I don't have the TRO3050 Upgrade available, only the TRO3050. Will that be good enough? (Especially since I'm at work and don't have the TRO with me.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
Scaletail rightly pointed out that the page was big, and not exactly a template. It's more a worksheet. Maybe I should rename it?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::Sorry for not engaging sooner; too tired to do more than rote stuff. <br />
::::Well, until we 'finish' it and move it to a regular page, I think it's fine right now. <br />
::::Did you want to choose another 'Mech? (I had intended 2 people other than yourself to check it, but...)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::Been there (too tired...) so no problem.<br />
:::::How about a mech from one of the TRO downloads on classicbattletech.com? That way we're all using the same reference.<br />
:::::*[http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=products&mode=full&id=224#downloads TRO:3075 (Hammerhands)]<br />
:::::*[http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=products&mode=full&id=161#downloads TRO:3055 Update (variety)]<br />
:::::*[http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=products&mode=full&id=222#downloads TRO:3039 (Thorn, Vulcan)]<br />
:::::Just a thought.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 23:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:As a quick aside if you do start adding data from SSW the program adds ammo costs onto designs rather than exclude them as per the rules. No affect on BV as far as I can tell but be careful as to what you guys include {{unsigned|86.7.73.27|on 9 May 2010}}<br />
<br />
===Poll regarding BV===<br />
Herb Beas put up a poll about Battle Value. Since this bears directly on the above discussion and voting closes on June 4th, I'd encourage everyone to [http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=66583.0 vote in the poll].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==MUL canon?==<br />
Speaking about citing BV, is the MUL canon or meta-source? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 15:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:It is canon.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 15:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::I agree. Every indication I've seen is that it is official. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::No it's not. It will be canon once it is officially released, but the beta-version that was circulated for fact-checking is inofficial and thus a meta-source at best. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::What is the MUL?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::MUL = Master Unit List. A project by a team of volunteers to identify every combat unit in the BattleTech universe. A preview is available at the ClassicBattleTech.com site as the [http://www.classicbattletech.com/downloads/MasterUnitList_v1-66p_Names.pdf Master Unit Name List].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::Thanks, is [[Peter LaCassie]] part of that bunch?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::AFAIK, Peter Lacasse is not. However, CBT forum member Xotl is part of the MUL team and his [http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=53761.0 'Mech list/RAT project] is superior to and more recent than Lacasse's older work. In any case I think it's safe to say that the MUL team are aware of the Lacasse faction list. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 23:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Rules Revisited ==<br />
<br />
Hoping to jump start this discussion : How detailed can we be regarding the rules we present, specifically in the equipment articles? Can we designate certain rules "Level 3" vs. "Level 2"? That sort of thing. I think the differing views are out there, and its time to build a consensus. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
:First off, the "Level 2"/"Level 3" designation was eliminated in ''Total Warfare''. There is tournament-legal and non-tournament-legal, and then there is experimental. To my knowledge, there is no prohibition against summarizing game data for weapons and equipment. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
::I feel that we should give both designations... Old Rules Level 1, 2, 3, and N/A (equipment that was intorduced after the cut-over...) as well as the current Standard/Tournament, Advanced, and Experimental rules Levels. i guess N/A would be the rules level under both rules level systems for [[Fanon]] and [[Apocryphal]] content as Rules Levels only apply rules published in [i]Canon[/i] Materiel. Mainly linking to the Rules Level Page bookmark that deals with the specific section would work. Any template dealing with weapons and equipment should have a spot for rules levels in the side table. Question is should we go so far as to have the templates provide the options and the editor that creates the page would deleat the 2 to 4 options that do not apply.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Policy_Talk:Canon&diff=179932Policy Talk:Canon2011-05-02T21:16:43Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Default to "Canon" or "official"? */</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Policy Talk:Canon/Archive 1|Archive 1 (July 2008-February 2009)]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Total rewrite==<br />
After working on this for a very long time, here is my total rewrite of the Policy. It is the result of the discussions we had on this talk page (and others) and, of course, in no small part of my personal vision on how this issue should be adressed. I honestly do think that while the wording was changed significantly, the meaning is essentially the same and that I have adequately managed to cast our agreements into words. I have also elected to be bold and just implemented the change without re-starting the discussion (sorry Revanche and Scaletail), but I felt I should let the result speak for itself. If it turns out that there is no consensus to support my work, feel free to revert it. The missing templates can (and will) be created and added to the articles in question in a week's time or so, provided that the policy is accepted. Feel free to discuss. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 13:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Wow, Frabby, that's fantastic. I think it encapsulates all our prior discussions. It's been worth the wait :-). My only nitpick is that I think stating that 'BTW does not seek to define canon' is a bit confusing. I know what you mean, but I think it would be helpful if it is explicitly stated that we are adhering to CGL's own, internal canon policy. While ''we'' are not determining canon, it is also not left totally up to the judgment of the reader. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)<br />
::But it is, Scaletail. We are differentiating between fanon and official products. Whether an article (or a portion of it) is canon is left up solely to the reader. <br />
::Some past things (rules, characters, arcs, etc.) are considered apocryphal, others are now absorbed and the definition gets even further muddled by gold stars on the CBT forums. By backing away from ever attempting to 'answer' what is canon, we keep the harsh feelings muted/sated. Canon as defined by TPTB, is addressed in the article [[Canon]], rather than BTW's [[Policy:Canon]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Agree, Frabby: well done. I think its simpler, cleaner and easier to understand. I'm still not thrilled with the various colors used for the tags, but understand better now the intent and the irritant factor is low for me. I made a few minor copy-edit changes that don't change the character of the policy. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Moved the old discussion to the bottom of this Talk Page===<br />
...because that discussion is essentially obsolete with the new page. Not sure if it could/should be moved into an archive page, and I don't know how to do that anyways. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Archived this for you. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Default to "Canon" or "official"?===<br />
Revanche marked his last edit to the page as a minor one, and mostly he cleaned up the wording. However, there is one bit that is not as minor as it might appear at first: In the second part of the policy, he changed the text from "BTW articles are considered to discuss '''canonical''' issues by default" to read "BTW articles are considered to discuss '''official''' issues by default". While I can see where he's coming from, especially considering that the policy is not to decide on what is what, he has actually put his finger on the weak spot of the entire policy: Namely that it should not strictly use ''any'' tags in the first place; applying the tags does some sorting already, even though it follows the official guidelines. See, if the articles would cover "official" sources by default then the "Apocrypha" tag would be superfluous, as all apocryphal material is always official. Only fan-made stuff is not. It is really the (clearly) canonical stuff that needs to additional tag. Therefore, for lack of a better wording I suggest reverting "official" to "canonical". Please discuss. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You've hit on my problems withe the tags, right there. I feel that -due to the nature of the universe being told from many different in-character perspectives- almost everything is apocryphal and where one thing is stated to be true from one perspective (say Capellan), another perspective may indicate its lack of truth (say FedSuns). The genecaste is a good example of this. Even TPTB claim whatever you want in your game works, they just provide the backbone from which to work. To me, official is anything that is or has been licensed, even though it may no longer be valid. For example, some of the BattleDroid 'Mechs no longer exist or in the manner in which they were produced. They are official, but -due to their current nature- would enjoy one of the 'Apocrypha' tags. <br />
:I saw the inclusion of any tags other than fanon as possibly allowing for further digression as to what is canon or not (indeed, we've already had one 'contributor' claim his fanon is just as valid here as any of the official stuff and therefore not needing a fanon tag). Instead, I prefer to leave it un-judged, other than 'official' or 'fanon'. Those lines are quite clear for the vast majority of us. <br />
:I compromised when it came to the tags, because...why fight something like this? But calling something canon is going to confuse our mission statement in regards to that, and I say that because I am confused as to what is canon when we try and determine it. That's why I changed it from 'canon' to 'official' because I truly thought this is what you meant and that 'canon' had slipped in. Otherwise, the title of that section ("Unofficial material must be segregated from official material") seems to argue differently than what is stated in the paragraph itself. If its not clear to me...--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::We could go by different way stating this. Old Canon? Obsolete Canon? BattleDroids 'mechs for instance are being introduced into canon material by way of Age of War era material. Battledroids themselves came out before BT Universe was finalized. Personally, since Battledroids was earliest game, hasn't been reflected in canon materials until recently. Like the unseens of old, they too are not seen. Thus these re-imaging now introduced. If you trying classify this I'd say go with pre-Battletech if its relating directly with Battledroids material. As for other things, such a Genecaste, listing them as [[Canon Rumor]] arguable best way to go. Its canon, but its not solided information.Its too bad we can't having rating on how reliable information is printed now. Example of the Jihad Secrets: The Blake Documents: All 50 Divisions of the Word of Blake are listed. With gleems on what their doing from perspective of intelligence report. Which means is not rock solid, but darn close. Maybe we should have rating system 0-9 on reliability of source material on somethings? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::No, with all respect due to you, but no. We, the Editors of BTW, should never be the ones to determine what is canon and what is not. Everyone has an opinion, and you'd have such a scale being railed against on each and every place it was used to rate an article. That very idea would cause people to say, "BattleTechWiki says that Event Alpha or Weapon Tech Beta is Canon Level High. They don't know what they're talking about." We don't want to be a source of opinionated articles, but ones that are well-researched and fact-based. [[Policy:Verifiability|Verifiability]] is on the verge of being a policy and neutrality is one of our [[BattleTechWiki:Five pillars| Five Pillars]]. Using an opinion-based rating system would detract from the verifiability we strive for and the neutrality we demand. Sorry, but I cannot back such a method. (Too strong? {{Emoticon| ;) }})<br />
:::As for utilizing differing degrees of canoncity...simplicity is the key. Anytime we have to explain to each of ourselves (major contributors) what we think is canon and by what age or degree, we're removing the simplicity of the policy for the average or less-active editors. <br />
:::I think, Wrangler, the very concept we're discussing here may be forking, as an example of what Frabby is bringing up for discussion. He and I are simply debating the use of the words 'official' and 'canon' in the Canon policy, rather than the need to expand the policy as a whole. (Take a look at the archived discussion to see how detailed and lost we got in the initial discussion, before it was cemented it in my February policy and then simplified with Frabby's November one.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::I think you both misunderstood me, in different ways. :)<br />
::::Wrangler, you fell into the trap that I tried to adress within the Canon article. Some canon only exists in the form of [[Canon Rumor]]s. But even these are canon, being rumors witin the universe. Credibility is never an issue. Instead, the question is whether or not a given real-world product can be said to officially contribute its content to the shared BT universe. Technically, there is only canon and non-canon, but the apocryphal articles stand out as special because they are neither clearly canon nor non-canon. As for BattleDroids stuff such as the Ostroc mk II, I'd consider it apocryphal (and I have been meaning to write its article for some time).<br />
::::Revanche, what I tried to say within the policy was that an article needs no tag (i.e. default) if there is nothing to suggest that its subject is anything but canon. Conversely, the tags are needed (exception to the rule) where that is not the case - apocrypha and non-canon/fanon. I think it needs to be pointed out in the respective articles that these have issues with canonicity, which I adressed through the tags. So in this sense, the tags don't actually decide something, but point out where there might be an issue (which is not applicable to most sources and subjects). Phew. Words fail me, I hope I brought my point across and perhaps somebody else can find the right words to put into the policy. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Ouch, hope i recover from that mental trap. So are you guys going come up with tags to point out...hmmm articles that may that are canon, but may not be straight truth? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Wrangler, check out where the policy addresses the "Canonicity" section of articles to answer this question of your's. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Frabby, I have no problem with the tags, and have included a new one of my own (to solve a problem where fan stories and articles were being lumped into the wrong categories when the fanon tag was used). To be honest, I'm not 100% onboard with the need of the tags, since the inclusion of the "Canonicity" section could address this, but I'm not heartbroken about it, either. <br />
:::::So, with that cleared up, can you take another stab at the original question you posed, about the use of 'canon' vice 'official' in the policy paragraph? Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I would say that the policy needs to be "BTW articles are considered to discuss '''canonical''' issues by default", using the "Apocrypha" tag to denote Official Materiel that is Not Part of the Canon. IMO, the use of Official and Canon as synonyms is contraindicated.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Pics from video games==<br />
I know that the video games aren't considered canon, but what about using them as a source of pictures for the articles? Obviously, this would only apply to pictures that don't contradict anything (including the existing picture, if any), but it seems like some detailed, full-color shots might help some of the articles. --[[User:Artanis|Artanis]] 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you give examples of where/in which articles you would want to insert pictures from computer games? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Mostly the ones where the existing pics are really not that great right now, especially the front-on wireframe-ish ones like the [[Uller]] and [[Summoner_(Thor)|Thor]]. Also, pretty much anything in the [[MechCommander_(Video_Game)|MechCommander]] intro video would be worth at least considering. --[[User:Artanis|Artanis]] 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think there's any problem with this, so long as the game the image is taken from is linked in the pictures description in the article. This tells readers that the image is from a video game, so it shouldn't be too confusing as far as canon versus non-canon is concerned. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 22:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::: I was quite fond of the MechCommander graphics myself. The only question is that those illustrations generally only apply to the Primary configurations in the case of omnimechs. You can refit the mech however you wanted and it would still look the same. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fanon tag color ==<br />
<br />
A new point of discussion: the fanon tags, to me, give off the appearance of a warning by using the color red, rather than the vibe of a notice or announcement. I've had to re-add the tag to the [[Suomi Warders]] stories. Though [[User:Seth|Seth]] didn't indicate why he took them off, in the act of creating a fanon warning tag for his user page, I reflected that we reserve the color red for the higher levels of warning for a reason. The use of the color on fanon tags may give off the feeling we're warning the reader (and the author) that there is something wrong with 'this page.'<br><br />
I'd like to suggest we utilize a different color. Maybe white or Sarna gold? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"<br />
|-<br />
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived discussion of the included proposal. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''<br />
|-<br />
! style="background-color: #FFFFE0; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |<br />
<br />
== Meta-sources ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] and myself (and now, [[User:Doneve|Doneve]]) are presently in a [[Talk:Kallon Industries|discussion]] with an IP who -quoting the [[Policy:Canon#Fanon_content|Canon policy's fanon content section]]- complains about Doneve's use of ''[[Objective Raids: 3067]]'' as a source. I jumped in with support for Dmon's argument regarding the facts being true, but only had the 2nd of the Notes in OR:3067's article to support BTW 'policy' regarding using non-official sources.<br />
<br />
I propose adding the following statement to the Canon policy's Articles about non-canonical products section, under the banner (with a 'see also' comment in the Fanon content section):<br />
<br />
{{Quote|BattleTechWiki acknowledges the existence of some sources of information that are not official but, like BTW, do the necessary research and compiling to present official and canon facts regarding the BattleTech universe. These sources are known as 'meta-sources'. Only a select few have been reviewed and determined by consensus to be accepted as sources for BTW articles. They may not be used as references within the articles, because they are not official; instead, the original, official sources are required to be cited. These currently accepted meta-sources are: ''[[Objective Raids: 3067]]'', the [http://isatlas.teamspam.net/ IS Atlas] and Classic BattleTech's cartographer [[Øystein Tvedten]]'s [http://home.ifi.uio.no/~oysteint/ISMP.html Star League Defense Forces Mapping Agency] (as well as the other released maps of his found in the article about him). <br />
<br />
As stated in the tag, details regarding the accepted use as a meta-source can be found on each of the relevant pages.}}<br />
<br />
Comments requested. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I don't think we should accept meta-sources as sources, because it would make BTW a "only" meta-meta source so to speak, and dilute/devaluate the BTW content. Do as wikis do: Research your content and quote correct sources. Meta-sources can be useful to check if you overlooked something, but they are just as biased and prone to errors as BTW and using them as a source would only aggravate that problem. And what's the gain? There is nothing a meta-source author found that we cannot find as well, and quote for reference. In fact, well-researched articles with references is ''the'' great strength of the wiki approach. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Absolutely agree with you that original sources are preferred over meta-sources. I really don't have a good, solid argument to support the use of meta-sources, other than they have already consolidated the official material into a format easily digestable and incorporateble. We need to have a policy that addresses peoples concerns (such as noted here) when someone does use a meta-source: my answer is 1) it is not encouraged, but not dis-allowed, 2) it may not be cited as a reference itself, and 3) it needs to be accepted by the BTW community as a trustworthy meta-source. <br />
<br />
::Otherwise, if we do not allow the use of meta-sources, and we suspect they are being used, what is our policy? Do we delete and admonish? Do we push the Editor to imemdiately follow up with official sources or face deletion? In fact, I see insertion of facts that originate from a trustworthy meta-source to be even more valuable than facts that are otherwise uncited. The end goal: yes, every fact is cited is preferred. But, barring that, a meta-source at least is a step in the right direction. Similar example: if I see a fact in Article A, here on BTW, that is uncited that I don't have any doubts about, I feel free to use that fact to build Article B (also uncited). As BTW is a meta-source, it is a similar analogy.<br />
<br />
::I'm not looking to create a separate policy regarding meta-sources, but for the reason detailed above, I think we should have a supporting position for ''certain'' meta-sources, since if the facts are true, they should not be deleted. Otherwise, the logic extends equally to all uncited facts on the project. I think in a black-n-white perspective, your position is much stronger, but there are shades to be considered if we out-right state meta-sources are not acceptable. (My head is a bit muddy; am I being clear?) --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::If I understand you right, you're suggesting a preferential treatment of certain meta-sources. I am opposed to this idea, because the choice which meta-sources to treat preferentially is in itself a totally subjective process. All meta-sources should be treated as equally suspect no matter how trustworthy with one notable exception - BTW itself.<br />
:::If meta-sources are being used, I suggest treating this just as if no references were given. If doubtful information is given, insert a <reference needed> tag. Meta-sources cannot serve as reference, so the author would need to dig up whatever primary source the meta-source took its info from.<br />
:::What I am concerned about in this context is that editors might be tempted to sloppy research if they can hide behind a meta-source. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I disagree, Revanche. OR:3067 is not a compilation of information culled from other sources in the same way that BTW is supposed to be. There are certain assumptions that are made, especially with regard to the production of components. My specific example: Because of my work here, I had done the legwork to find out that the ''Sagittare's'' weapons were produced under license on the same world, a factoid that was dropped in HB:HD. Unaware of this (or perhaps having done it before that book was produced), MadCap listed the production for those weapons at their original site. I informed him and he changed it.<br />
::::I greatly respect what he and the community have done with that project. In many ways, it mirrors what we do here. Nonetheless, OR:3067 is not a canon or licensed source and should not be granted any status other than "fan-made". If it exists in OR:3067, it should exist in a canon source. Knowing that should help an editor narrow done the original source of the information, not replace it. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Understood. Its clear that the majority don't feel meta-sources should be authorized by BTW. I won't try to pigeonhole a compromise. However, I do ask for your policy suggestions on what the answer should be when a) its clear someone is only using a meta-source, and/or b) when someone challenges the inclusion of material that clearly comes from a meta-source. They are two different things. I'm just opposed to deleting anything added by another Editor which I feel is probably right, but is uncited and most likely originating from a meta-source. Likewise, how will/would you answer [[65.190.30.41]]'s [[Talk:Kallon Industries|concerns]]? (Frabby, you addressed his mis-assumptions, but not his concerns about the use of the information from a meta-source.) Appreciate the guidance. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::I 100% agree with Frabby that citing a fan-made "book", even one as well-done as MadCap's, should be akin to not citing a source. Like any other unsourced information that seems accurate, it should be tagged as needing a citation. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 03:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::: Wake up, a little less congested, lot more rested, clearer mind. <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> is what it needs. I guess I got hung up on wanting to retain statements I knew to be true, and wanted to resist any urge for people to revert wholesale additions to BTW because from a semi-trusted source. But, if the complaining person doesn't like a particular statement, they can tag it as needing a citation and then delete it after a certain amount of time has past. It is not my responsibility to ensure it gets deleted (or protected) if someone else tags it, which I think was a chore I felt myself being painted into.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::One question which should be raised in this discussion. As all canon BattleTech sources cite authors and contributors, why not consider meta-sources written by the same authors. For instance, Chris Wheeler is cited in several books as a fact checker (at the very least). If Catalyst Games trusts BattleTech Universe canon with him, he should be a reliable source, no? Should we not consider [http://isatlas.teamspam.net/ IS Atlas], his website, as being very reliable?<br />
:::I should think citation of such meta-sources would be akin to our current policy towards electronic posts on official websites ([http://www.classicbattletech.com Classic BattleTech], [http://www.catalystgames.com Catalyst Games], etc.) and author/contributor posts on message boards, both of which I have seen cited in the past.<br />
:::If you agree, I would propose that all meta-sources written directly by authors and fact checkers for BattleTech be considered as legitimate source material.--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Strongly disagree. Only that is Canon which was published as Canon in a canonical source. People like Chris "Chinless" Wheeler, "Oystein" Tvedten and Mike "Cray" Miller (and many others) are very productive in their off-time. The catch is that in their off-time, they're not in any official capacity and anything they privately produce that isn't sanctioned or solicited by Herb is just Fanon. This, I feel, is a very important point that cannot be stressed enough: Only sources (as in publications) are canonical; writers (as persons) are not.<br />
::::Meta-sources are totally unofficial. As long as they're merely faithfully reproducing canonical information, they are not original source and therefore not required as a reference in the first place; conversely, where meta-sources are the only source, they are non-canonical. For example, the IS Atlas cannot provide the canonical XY-coordinates for most periphery systems simply because those coordinates were never published in canon. Yet the IS Atlas provides coordinates. Don't make the mistake to assume they're canonical.<br />
::::Finally, no, meta-sources are ''not'' reliable. In most cases (Sarna BTW, OR:3067, IS Atlas, etc.) these sources were produced by dedicated fans. But that doesn't rule out errors, like the dead-wrong plancements of many systems on Sarna.net (take [[Götterdämmerung]] as an example). An oversight or misspelling in a canonical source can become canon, such as the misspelled name of [[New Hati]]. But an error in a meta-source remains just plainly wrong.<br />
::::In my opinion, dedicated work on this wiki (like on any meta-source) means you go and find the original canonical quote/reference for whatever data is in question. Don't hide behind a meta-source of unverified veracity. Check the (right) sources and use these as a reference. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::Those are all great points, Frabby. I couldn't agree more. I would like to point out that things authors post on the message board are cited because they are clarifications or errata. If there are places where this is not the case, bring it up in a discussion. The CBT website is published by CGL, so it can be considered a canon source, except where they state otherwise.--[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 14:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Consensus Wrap-up===<br />
Reviewing this discussion that ended in early February, it appears consensus has led to the following points: <br />
#Meta-sources, defined as those projects, whether they be done by fans or CBT official producers acting in an unofficial capacity, are not to be recognized as canon/official.<br />
#As such, meta-sources are not to be referenced on BTW as source material and any facts attributed to these sources may have that citation replaced with a '''<nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki>''' tag.<br />
#It is also noted that where CBT forums reference errata or clarifications by the official staff, these are considered to be acceptable citations for BTW references, as long as they occur in a clearly official capacity, such as in the Catalyst Game Labs Interaction boards.<br />
<br />
====Consensus Support/Non-Support==== <br />
Please state either your '''support''' or '''non-support''' for this consensus wrap-up, per the listed "Consensus Wrap-up" points: <br />
*'''Support''': I withdraw my motion to add an official acceptance of certain (or any) meta-sources, as not being in the best interests of BTW's reputation as a reliable meta-source in its own right. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Support''': Nothing to add to Revanche's excellent wrap-up. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Support''' Seems reasonable. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 12:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
'''Consensus Summary''': Proposal (''per consensus'') passes. Closed on 26 March 2010<br />
|-<br />
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived discussion of the included proposal. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Old Game Rules ==<br />
How are we going to treat out-dated rulebooks? Do we consider them as canon? I often see sources such as Maximum Tech and Master Rules refered to. Should these references be replaced with the TW/TM/TO/SO when possible? Should old rules be present on the site at all?<br />
--[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 14:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:It really depends upon the context. If a rule has changed, an an article is referencing the rule, then I'd image it should point to the current book. But, if it hasn't changed, then it can reference ''all'' the books, so that any reader can use what they have on-hand. Simple answer: old citations should not be blindly updated with new ones. Do you have an example in question?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Since some players whom aren't update, they may be using the older names for rules. Such as Level 3 for instance. Some players maybe still USING older Battletech Master Rules Revised and Maximum Tech, that should be treated as they are. Level 3's replacement rules, Advanced and Experimental Tech are treated differiently since they split up Level 3's rules up and add new ones. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::Yes, Wrangler correctly guessed that caught my attention, talk about Level 3 rules. There's also the issue of potential confusion caused by references to old rules. Maybe old rule stuff should be marked in some way? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 16:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::I'd be open to ideas as to how. But, rules aren't so much our focus as universe is. We try and shy away from discussion of the actual rules and get into the character of the universe. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::In that case, should all rules be separated out from fluff? Something like this: [[Dual Cockpit]]? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 18:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::I kinda like it. I think it needs to be a less bold color (maybe the Sarna gold?). But, I'm also of the belief we have to answer the question: is it necessary? Between you, me and every other Editor here on BTW (keep it quiet {{Emoticon| ;) }}), I'd like us to approach BTW as in-character Sarna (Sarna University?) researchers from far in BT's future, looking back on these events leading up to the 32nd century, uncovering historical data. Therefore, things like yor break-out (from character) ''would'' be appropriate. However, if we're simply 21st century Real World fans, then that kind of break-out is not necessary (it can be argued).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::My own choice would be a reddish hue. Just wasn't motivated to try to find the perfect color. Something that makes it more fade into background rather than stand out would be preferable. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Take a look at my edit. I'd be interested in seeing your color concept.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
''Associated Rules''<br />
This is an out-of-universe game rule.<br />
<br />
'''OLD:''' This is a game rule that is no longer valid in the current ruleset.<br />
</div><br />
::::::::: Looks better than gray, but I still favor red for some reason. Maybe it's because yellow is the Davionista color? See red example box above. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::I understand your (possible) dislike for the color because of nationalistic styles, but I'm working solely from the perspective of what fits the established site colors. I was actually thinking of even making it a darker yellow/gold (#FC0) (see your above example), but think the original example (#FFFFE0) is a better fit (less glaring). I just want to find something that stands out from the 'character' of the article, but doesn't distract the reader as uncharacteristic of the site. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::I know you like red, Neufeld, but please don't use it. Anyone who's red/green colorblind (like my Dad) will have a hard time reading the content.<br />
:::::::::::If you absolutely must use red, please use the [http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/contrast-analyser.html Contrast Analyzer] to be sure your content can be seen.<br />
:::::::::::Rev if you're getting stuck on the color to use, you may want to check out the [http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/color-blend/ Color Blender] tool that Eric Meyer put on his site. It's saved me a lot of time. (It shows that #FFF1B9 and #FFECA2 might be good colors for the note background color. Then use standard #FFCC00 for border color.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::I like the lighter yellow much better. The gold one is too bold. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 12:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::..."you may want to check out the [http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/color-blend/ Color Blender] tool..." Oooh, shiny. Thanks. I'm liking #FFE670; its a blend of the soft yellow in the left background and the bold gold of the site. Anyone else? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I'm extremely busy right now and don't really have time to contribute right now, but I have to chime in here: Personally, I disagree with Revanche's notion of keeping BTW in-universe (how would you justify OOC articles like [[Jordan Weisman]] or [[List of BattleTech products]]?). That aside, I wonder if we could create a Game Rules template for what you're going. It would provide a prominent frame outside of the normal article text, possibly save a lot of typing, and help by giving a pre-made format for noting down rules. Variables should be ''Source|Brief rules description''. I'll revisit this when I have more time, give me a week. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::LOL. Yeah, you're my primary opponent to that concept (in-character researchers), but we'll address that in a different setting. However, it sounds like you're in agreement with the idea of breaking out rules in the above style, but have a 'quick-start' idea for soing so. I'm interested in your idea.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::I'd like to offer up [[Gauss Rifle]] as an example of the way I handled this. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::The reason I'm not partial to all italics is that the game rules material doesn't segregate itself well enough from the overall article, especially when it is likely there are other aspects of an article that may also use italics. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To recap a little. I think we have agreed that rules should be put into into a box, and that part is mostly down to decide upon a color.<br />
However, what should we do about the old vs new rules? That still needs to be discussed. A page that really shows the problem is [[Cockpit Command Console]]. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 14:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:How about with bulleted items, per the original source? Example:<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
*'''''BattleTech Compendium''''', p. 47: Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.<br />
*'''''Maximum Tech''''', p 49: Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.<br />
*'''''BattleTech Master Rules''''', p. 42: Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.<br />
*'''''Total Warfare''''', p. 247: Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.<br />
*'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''', p. 149: provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).<br />
</div><br />
:As always, Editors only add then information they have direct access to and care to support with source. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Well, I'm not too hot on that format. While a bulleted list might be the way to go, there's the problem that it doesn't clearly show which set of rules are the most current. Also the way the sources are listed seems contrary to the way we cite stuff on this site. Maybe more like this:<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
*''BattleTech Compendium'': Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*''Maximum Tech'': Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.(ref here)<br />
*''BattleTech Master Rules'': Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
<br />
<br />
* Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''': provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).(ref here)<br />
</div><br />
::(ref here) means a normal reference. Here I have split the box in two parts, old and new. Second, I have reserved bold for current rules. Third, since Total Warfare and Tech Manual are the current base rules, I have chosen not not state their name explicitly in the box, just in the reference. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 18:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::I like your use of bolding to indicate current rules, with a space between active and inactive sources. Two questions:<br />
:::#Why not list the name of the current references at the beginning? A) it provides consistency between the methods (less confusing to Editors making the changes from 'active' to 'outdated') and B) if/when a source becomes outdated, it is simpler to move down and remove the bolding code (<nowiki>'''</nowiki>).<br />
:::#What about putting the active rules on top, so that is what is first seen by the reader (afterall, most important information should always come first)?<br />
:::My example (a change on your's):<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
Active Rules:<br />
*'''''Total Warfare''''': Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''': provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).(ref here)<br><br><br />
Outdated Rules:<br />
*''BattleTech Compendium''': Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*''Maximum Tech'': Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.(ref here)<br />
*''BattleTech Master Rules'': Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
</div><br />
:::I'm liking this. I think we're making considerable progress. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::Yes I agree on your changes. We still need to decide on headings. Level 2 for rules, and level 3 for Active Rules and Outdated Rules? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::I'd say Level 2, since it wouldn't be a subset of anything else (except maybe for ==Notes==). There's no need to go into Level 3, is there, if we use the box below the heading? (I.e., have both sets in the same box.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::Well, I'd say that the headings in the box needs a bit of highlight:<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFE670; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
'''Active Rules''':<br />
*'''''Total Warfare''''': Umptysquat only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*'''''Historical: Operation Klondike''''': provides optional rule allowing for Uber-Umptysquat, with four criticals, to operate with a -1 modifier (up until the 4th year of the Pentagon Civil War).(ref here)<br><br><br />
'''Outdated Rules''':<br />
*''BattleTech Compendium''': Umptysquat takes up three criticals and adds a +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
*''Maximum Tech'': Added the Uber-Umptysquat, which takes up four criticals, but requires no modifiers.(ref here)<br />
*''BattleTech Master Rules'': Umptysquat now only requires two criticals, but keeps the +1 modifier.(ref here)<br />
</div><br />
::::::like this. Also should the Rules heading be in or outside the box? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Sorry for the delay. I'm of two minds on that: one is that the heading should be inside the box for completeness' sake. On the other is that now the opening box code has to be placed before the section heading, which means anyone editing the code itself has to open the edit section before it. That seems minor to me, though, for once the box is in place (by an experienced Editor), its in place. <br />
:::::::How do you feel about it? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I think that it would look better inside the box, but it's not something that would bother me if it was outside. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::Agree with Neufeld. I have to say you've made a terrific job here, and Rev's concerns seem minor. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 09:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Game Data in articles ==<br />
<br />
''While related, this is a separate discussion from how rules are to be presented (above). Please continue in that discussion, as well.''<br />
<br />
I'd like to discuss the 'character' of articles dealing with in-universe subjects ('Mechs, bios, etc.), when rules and gaming information are included. I wish I could remember the location of the discussion, but I thought one Editor responded well to another Editor's query about items in infoboxes by saying we tended to shy away from actual gaming data (armor amount, superstructure, etc.), but describing them as they might be discussed in a ''Jane's'' narrative (ex: "light on armor", "built with an extremely strong hull", etc.). Originally, this has been true, but done without a policy regarding this. Now, largely in part due to requests to me to include them, the infoboxes come out and explicitly state this data, which (IMO) robs both the in-universe encyclopedic character of the article and potential material to discuss in the narrative sections of the article.<br />
<br />
What I'm asking for here is a conversation as to how we want articles to be used: are they TRO-like discussions of the fictional subject, are they real world encyclopedic metasources for both in-universe and gaming data? Do we want to strip gaming data out of these articles? Do we want to be more inclusive of it?<br />
<br />
I'm going to weigh in following the first comments made by others, but please be aware of two points: 1) what we decide here does have far-reaching implications (it might be its own policy) and, 2) (more for Frabby) I'm not attempting to pursue my interest in making Editors 'in-character' Sarna researchers with this discussion. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Please comment:<br />
: I feel that using in-universe measurements like tonnage, speed and cost are OK and should be included. Border cases are things BV, SI points and such. I would prefer to include these also, but would not feel strongly about those. Consider for example [[Cheetah]]: Everything in first part of infobox is OK. In second part: Mass, Frame, Power Plant, Fuel weight, Armament, Comm system, Targeting system and heat sinks are all things someone in-universe could learn, and should be kept. Structural Integrity, Fuel points and BV are game stats that wouldn't be represented in the same way in-universe, and hence debatable. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 14:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::And the fine point that must be understood is that BV listings on here will probably be well-fought for, as we've had them on here almost since day 1 (of the first 'Mech article). From there, then, comes the argument, "If not [my favorite game stat], why BV?" And I don't see any easy way to segregate game stats in the same way as game rules (as in the above discussion) with out it being awkward.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Good comments, Neufeld. At this point, we're just having a discussion and I feel it lacks enough involvement. Should we pursue a policy about article 'character'? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::: My personal position is this : Anything short of blatant copyright infringement is fair game. I believe that more is, in fact, good. In answer to Rev's questions above, I say the articles in question can include all those things. However, as I usually do, I will follow the concensus. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::: Rev, you are probably thinking of CJ's comments at [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Change_format.3F]]. I have made the argument many times in various places as well. That said, I will argue until I'm blue in the fingers for keeping BV because it's one of the things here that I actually find ''useful''. When I'm running a game based on BV, I can make sure that every player has an official document that lists BV for every unit allowed, or I can just tell them "go to Sarna".<br />
:::: I think OOC information is where InfoBoxes excel precisely because they are separate from the body of the text. I'm pretty happy with the balance we have now, and would argue that any policy created should enshrine the status quo. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
===Style Box===<br />
''Copied from [[User talk:Mbear#Style_Box|Mbear's talk page]]''<br />
<br />
Hy Mbear, is it usefull to add a style box, like the Game Rules in the Technology section, to the Military unit articles, it is a idea, any thought, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 19:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:At the moment I'd say no because AFAIK we haven't officially started adding the style box to the Game Rules articles. I'd prefer to finish one category (technology) completely and then start on the next thing.<br />
:I also don't know where you'd put the styled box on the Military Unit pages.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Take a look on this [[21st Division (Word of Blake)]], only a example.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::Oh. Well. That looks OK to me, but we should probably discuss it before you just start doing it. I'll copy this page to the [[Policy_Talk:Canon#Game_Data_in_articles]] section to see what happens.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Citing BV ==<br />
Whether an Editor is trying to complete an empty field for BV1 or BV2, there are plenty of vehicles (''et al'') that have yet to have those values canonized, via publishing in a master list or on the subject pages of a TRO. One Editor recently compiled BV based on the use of an non-official program (either SSW or MW) and cited it as such. The citation was reverted by another Editor, for that reason.<br />
That got me thinking: is BV only canon when actually published? My argument is no, it can be canon when properly determined via the canon rules for BV determination. I propose we accept as official any citation that uses the specific ruleset for that BV version (1 or 2). For example, <br />
*<nowiki><ref>''TechManual'', pp. 302-304, "Calculating 'Mech BV"</ref></nowiki><br />
Now, this obviously means some errors creep in, if an Editor is unable to correctly calculate, but that is true of errors anywhere on the wiki. In that case, and especially because the calculation section is referenced (rather than a direct source), other Editors are free to change the BV to either what they determine the BV to be (great if 2 or more Editors arrive at the same number independently) or as the BV is released in a direct source. <br><br />
Comments?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Well, I considered starting up discussion on this subject myself. I just wanted to wait for the rules and year stuff to be done, so the discussion wouldn't distract from those. There's also the cost of units that's in the same boat as BV. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 12:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Well, as conversation seems to have paused at the other two (semi-related) discussions, I'd be interested in your POV on what I've proposed. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::Considering things that can be calculated, I'm of the opinion that rules trumps values given that might contain printing errors. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 13:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::You and I agree in generalities, but I'm not sure I support this. In theory, I'd agree with you, but until it is either addressed with errata or acknowledged to be wrong, published BV would fall under our Canon policy. (However, if consensus leads to to an exception in this case, I'll follow).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::The point is [[W:Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]]. I can verify that the BV printed on page 103 of ''Combat Operations'' is the same as the one in the article. It is substantially more difficult to run the numbers myself to come up with the BV that you got. What if we get different numbers? Who is right? Obviously there is a correct answer, but what if somebody doesn't understand they are doing it wrong? This would also be considered ''original research'', meaning that I can't possibly verify the information you put in the article, because you did it yourself.<br />
:::::Yes, there are always printing errors. In general, when that occurs, it is well documented on the CBT forums and TPTB quickly approve errata for it. To argue that your math or the math of a fan-made program is better than that in official publications is disingenuous at best. As an example, I know for a fact that the BV spit out by The Drawing Board was occasionally wrong. Not always, but often enough that I didn't trust it. No, like every other piece of information in this wiki, BV and cost should have cited sources from official publications. That there is a formula that determines both of those pieces of information does not mean they should be treated differently. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::It will be hard to prove what the calculated BV is without the amounts of armor, number of heat sinks, and tons of ammo for the guns that is not mentioned in most of the articles. Or I should say that without this information it is rather difficult for an editor to make any checks on the calculations on somebodies work. While yes there are cannon rules for calculating BV and cost without the full amounts there can be no proof for the numbers given. Other then this objection, I do agree that calculated BV's can be used because the BV's of every object on a 'mech et. al. has been given in a source that is cannon. Hope I made myself understood. [[User:Underadarkhand|Underadarkhand]] 13:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Calculations should ''never'' be based on what's provided in this wiki, a meta-source. No, any calculations, in lieu of printed BV, must be based ''solely'' on official sources, using the current formulas (if we even allow this route).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::If the discussion of precedence between canon and rules' formulation continues, so be it. But, how do people feel about utilizing the rules in the absence of printed BV (when properly identified as having come from the rules)? I'm of the mind that the math could be presented on the discussion page, to allow for double-checking.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::Keep the canon policy intact; separate the information. Create a separate section for fan-calculated BVs that is clearly labeled as such. As per the existing canon policy, just make it clear what is official and what is not. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::Could we create a BV computation template to put on the discussion page? Base it on the TechManual formula for BV 2. Then we just enter the values in the template. Once that's computed, post the completed worksheet on the discussion page for people to double-check. I'm thinking the template would be a worksheet, kind of like we have for the "Quickly create a Canon Mech" articles.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::I think it needs to be mentioned that BV is something derivative, i.e. not something that can be decided. Instead, it is calculated from other canonical data. As such, I don't think you could call BV itself "canonical". Most importantly, it doesn't require a source (imho) because it's just the application of a formula, not something TPTB can really decide or change at a whim. I would even suggest removing it from BTW entirely, but it seems others do use it a lot for sorting and comparing, and so BV seems to have some use here after all. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::When I started forming the policies and templates here (all by my lonesome...where the ''h#11'' were you guys?!), I was just looking to get some consistency and value into the wiki; we didn't have anything approaching a core concept yet for the overall project. However, if I had known then that we'd be developing a kind of Jane's-type character here, I would have pushed more for in-universe only material, which would have negated the adding of BVs. It does appear readers enjoy the comparative and categorical benefits from using BVs, so...<br />
::::::I would like to support the use of Editor-calculated BVs where direct BVs are unavailable. Mbear's idea of a template seems reasonable to me, because then it can easily be checked by others for validity. Before we even entertain the idea of nixing Editor-calculated BVs, I'd like to give Mbear the opportunity to provide us one for an example. (Also, when a BV can be overwritten by a canon source, then it would be, no holds barred. Even if the calculation indicates otherwise.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::I am agreeable to Mbear's solution, assuming it's feasible. As long as the info can be verified to be correct, so a link to the talk page section would be fine. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Mbear, are you up to crafting such an example template for a class of vehicle? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::Yes. I'll start working on a Mech template tonight after work.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::This is proving to be more difficult than I anticipated, so I don't think I'll have the awesomely short turnaround time I had on some other projects. Please bear with me.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 11:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Defense part is (mostly) done. [[User:Mbear/BVWorksheet]] shows what I have so far. (Yes, the columns need to line up better and it's not wikified. Work in progress.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Kind of sort of completed the template page. Please review [[User:Mbear/BVWorksheet]] to see what I have. Comments appreciated.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::My first thought was, "Wow...this may be much more complicated than we have allowed for." However, Mbear's template seems rather all inclusive. Before we baptize this template idea, I think maybe we should all take it for a test run and compute the same 'Mech, see if we get the same answers. If the current Wardens of the site can't compute BV2 in a clear manner, even with Mbear's template, we may want to shelve the idea of anything other than officially-provided numbers.<br />
::The template isn't to teach people how to compute BV2, but to show their computations leading to it, in order to check for errors.<br />
::So, who is willing to try the template on their own talk pages (probably a subpage, like Mbear has done here)? I propose the [[Raven|Raven RVN-3L]] from ''[[Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade]]'' (chosen randomly). We need ''at least'' 2 others (I'm the third).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:One other thing: As Nuefled pointed out on the [[User_talk:Mbear/BVWorksheet|discussion page]], this sheet doesn't include the [http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual TechManual Errata] yet. I just wanted to get a sample done so we could have something concrete to discuss.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::The TechManual Errata has been integrated into the Worksheet.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:And I'm willing to compute BV for a 'Mech, but I don't have the TRO3050 Upgrade available, only the TRO3050. Will that be good enough? (Especially since I'm at work and don't have the TRO with me.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
Scaletail rightly pointed out that the page was big, and not exactly a template. It's more a worksheet. Maybe I should rename it?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::Sorry for not engaging sooner; too tired to do more than rote stuff. <br />
::::Well, until we 'finish' it and move it to a regular page, I think it's fine right now. <br />
::::Did you want to choose another 'Mech? (I had intended 2 people other than yourself to check it, but...)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::Been there (too tired...) so no problem.<br />
:::::How about a mech from one of the TRO downloads on classicbattletech.com? That way we're all using the same reference.<br />
:::::*[http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=products&mode=full&id=224#downloads TRO:3075 (Hammerhands)]<br />
:::::*[http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=products&mode=full&id=161#downloads TRO:3055 Update (variety)]<br />
:::::*[http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=products&mode=full&id=222#downloads TRO:3039 (Thorn, Vulcan)]<br />
:::::Just a thought.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 23:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
:As a quick aside if you do start adding data from SSW the program adds ammo costs onto designs rather than exclude them as per the rules. No affect on BV as far as I can tell but be careful as to what you guys include {{unsigned|86.7.73.27|on 9 May 2010}}<br />
<br />
===Poll regarding BV===<br />
Herb Beas put up a poll about Battle Value. Since this bears directly on the above discussion and voting closes on June 4th, I'd encourage everyone to [http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=66583.0 vote in the poll].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==MUL canon?==<br />
Speaking about citing BV, is the MUL canon or meta-source? --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 15:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:It is canon.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 15:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
::I agree. Every indication I've seen is that it is official. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::No it's not. It will be canon once it is officially released, but the beta-version that was circulated for fact-checking is inofficial and thus a meta-source at best. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 16:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::What is the MUL?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::MUL = Master Unit List. A project by a team of volunteers to identify every combat unit in the BattleTech universe. A preview is available at the ClassicBattleTech.com site as the [http://www.classicbattletech.com/downloads/MasterUnitList_v1-66p_Names.pdf Master Unit Name List].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::Thanks, is [[Peter LaCassie]] part of that bunch?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::::AFAIK, Peter Lacasse is not. However, CBT forum member Xotl is part of the MUL team and his [http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=53761.0 'Mech list/RAT project] is superior to and more recent than Lacasse's older work. In any case I think it's safe to say that the MUL team are aware of the Lacasse faction list. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 23:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Rules Revisited ==<br />
<br />
Hoping to jump start this discussion : How detailed can we be regarding the rules we present, specifically in the equipment articles? Can we designate certain rules "Level 3" vs. "Level 2"? That sort of thing. I think the differing views are out there, and its time to build a consensus. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
:First off, the "Level 2"/"Level 3" designation was eliminated in ''Total Warfare''. There is tournament-legal and non-tournament-legal, and then there is experimental. To my knowledge, there is no prohibition against summarizing game data for weapons and equipment. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
::I feel that we should give both designations... Old Rules Level 1, 2, 3, and N/A (equipment that was intorduced after the cut-over...) as well as the current Standard/Tournament, Advanced, and Experimental rules Levels. i guess N/A would be the rules level under both rules level systems for [[Fanon]] and [[Apocryphal]] content as Rules Levels only apply rules published in [i]Canon[/i] Materiel. Mainly linking to the Rules Level Page bookmark that deals with the specific section would work. Any template dealing with weapons and equipment should have a spot for rules levels in the side table. Question is should we go so far as to have the templates provide the options and the editor that creates the page would deleat the 2 to 4 options that do not apply.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Template:InfoBoxWeapon&diff=179531Template:InfoBoxWeapon2011-04-29T18:56:59Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{| class='infobox'<br />
|-<br />
| colspan='2' | {{{image|}}}<br />
|- <br />
| colspan='2' class='infoboxname' | {{{name}}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan='2' class='infoboxheading' | '''Production information'''<br />
|- class='infoboxrow' <br />
| Type || {{{Type|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Tech Base || {{{Tech Base|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Availability|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Availability<br />
{{!}} {{{Year Availability|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Introduced|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Introduced<br />
{{!}} {{{Year Introduced|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Extinction|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Extinction<br />
{{!}} {{{Year Extinction|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Reintroduced |}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Reintroduced <br />
{{!}} {{{Year Reintroduced |}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Tech Rating|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Technology Rating<br />
{{!}} {{{Tech Rating|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Availability Rating|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Availability Rating<br />
{{!}} {{{Availability Rating|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Age of War–Star League|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Availability Ratings<br />
{{!}}{{{Age of War–Star League|}}}/{{{Succession Wars|}}}/{{{Clan Invasion – Present|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Legality Rating|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Legality Rating<br />
{{!}} {{{Legality Rating|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan='2' class='infoboxheading' | '''Technical specifications'''<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Heat|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Heat<br />
{{!}} {{{Heat|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Damage || {{{Damage|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Minimum Range || {{{Minimum Range|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Short Range || {{{Short Range|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Medium Range || {{{Medium Range|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Long Range || {{{Long Range|}}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Extreme Range|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Extreme Range<br />
{{!}} {{{Extreme Range|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Tons|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Tons<br />
{{!}} {{{Tons|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Mass|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Mass<br />
{{!}} {{{Mass|}}} kg<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Critical Slots|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Critical Slots<br />
{{!}} {{{Critical Slots|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Space Slots|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Space Slots<br />
{{!}} {{{Space Slots|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{BattleArmor Slots|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BattleArmor Slots<br />
{{!}} {{{BattleArmor Slots|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Infantry Crew|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Infantry Crew<br />
{{!}} {{{Infantry Crew|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo Per Ton|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo Per Ton<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo Per Ton|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{RPG Shots Per Reload|}}}|<br />
{{!}} RPG Shots Per Reload<br />
{{!}} {{{RPG Shots Per Reload|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Mass Per Reload|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Mass Per Reload<br />
{{!}} {{{Mass Per Reload|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Bursts Per Reload|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Bursts Per Reload<br />
{{!}} {{{Bursts Per Reload|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Cost (unloaded)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Cost (unloaded)<br />
{{!}} {{{Cost (unloaded)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Inf Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Inf Weapon Cost (unloaded)<br />
{{!}} {{{Inf Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{BA Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BA Weapon Cost (unloaded)<br />
{{!}} {{{BA Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo Cost (per ton)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo Cost (per ton)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo Cost (per ton)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo Cost (per Reload)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo Cost (per Reload)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo Cost (per Reload)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{BV (1.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BV (1.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{BV (1.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo BV (1.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo BV (1.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo BV (1.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{BV (2.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BV (2.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{BV (2.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo BV (2.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo BV (2.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo BV (2.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<noinclude><br />
==Usage instructions==<br />
Copy and paste the following code into the top of the article, filling the appropriate fields. This has duplicate Fields for the BattleTech Stats of three different classes of Weapons (Infantry Portable Weapons, BattleArmor Weapons, Combat Vehicle Weapons/BattleMech Weapons). Use The current [[Template:InfoBoxWeapon|template]] for a weapons' main page and [[Template:InfoBoxRPGWeapon]] for the Role Playing Game Sub-Pages. If a field is unknown, delete it. <br />
<br />
<pre><nowiki><br />
{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|250px]]<br />
| name = ???<br />
| Type = <br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
[[:Category:Heavy Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[:Category:Heavy Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[:Category:Heavy Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[:Category:Heavy Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
[[:Category:Capital Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[:Category:Capital Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[:Category:Capital Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[:Category:Capital Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
| Usage = <br />
[[:Category:Foot Infantry|Foot Infantry Portable]]<br />
[[:Category:Jump Infantry|Jump Infantry Portable]]<br />
[[:Category:Motorized Infantry|Motorized Infantry]]<br />
[[:Category:Mechanized Infantry|Mechanized Infantry]]<br />
[[:Category:Pintle Mounts|Pintle]]<br />
[[:Category:Battle Armor|Battle Armor Mounted]]<br />
[[:Category:Combat Vehicles]]<br />
[[:Category:Support Vehicles]]<br />
[[:Category:BattleMechs]]<br />
[[:Category:UtilityMechs]]<br />
[[:Category:AeroSpace Fighters]]<br />
[[:Category:Small Craft]]<br />
[[:Category:Mobile Structures]]<br />
[[:Category:DropShips]]<br />
[[:Category:JumpShips]]<br />
[[:Category:Space Stations]]<br />
[[:Category:Capital Ships]]<br />
| Tech Base = ???<br />
[[Clan]]<br />
[[Inner Sphere|IS]]<br />
| Year Availability = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Introduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Extinction = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Reintroduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Legality Rating = [[Legality Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Heat = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Damage = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Short Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Medium Range =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Long Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Extreme Range =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Tons =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Critical Slots =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Space Slots =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Battle Armor Slots =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Infantry Crew =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| RPG Shots Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| RPG Shots Per Burst = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Cost (per reload) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
</nowiki></pre><br />
<br />
</noinclude><br />
<br />
<noinclude><br />
[[Category:Templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]<br />
[[Category:Infobox templates|Weapon]]<br />
</noinclude></div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=BattleTechWiki:Requests_for_comment/Archive&diff=179522BattleTechWiki:Requests for comment/Archive2011-04-29T17:37:30Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Request for Comment''' forum allows Editors to introduce an issue that may have sprung up either in a high-traffic area (ex: [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|Project:BattleMech]]) or somewhere more obscure (ex:[[2418]]), but may require a third, fourth or even twenty-third opinion. This allows a community consensus to be formed through discussion and may affect more than just the article being discussed.<br />
<br />
'''Useage''': Under a dated section, introduce a new entry with an asterisk (*), right under the "'''Requests for Comments'''" section head (''i.e''., in reverse chronological order). Start it off with a link to the discussion page of the article in question, and a very brief summary of the issue being discussed. Remember to sign the entry (with four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). '''Please ''do not'' add an opinion to the summary here.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Acceptable Example''': <br />
*[[Policy Talk:Notability]]: discussion as to what shall be done with articles deemed non-notable. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:55, 19 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
'''Unacceptable Example''': <br />
*[[Policy Talk:Notability]]: Some spammer wants to create an article about himself, just because he wrote some fan-boy story about [[Peder Smythe]]. Let's 'explain' to him why that won't fly. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:55, 19 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Requests for Comments:=<br />
''Add comments here (above the previous entry)''<br />
<br />
==29 April 2011==<br />
*Should we use the results of Official Formulas in InfoBox when Canon has dropped the ball?<br />
Various Values have formulas that exist for their creation. [[Battle Value]] is the Most Common, but there are Also [[BattleTroops]] Stats created From [[BattleTech]] and/or [[MechWarrior, First Edition]], [[BattleTech]] Stats Created from [[MechWarrior, Second Edition]], [[BattleTech]] Stats Created from [[MechWarrior, Third Edition]] or [[Classic BattleTech Role-Playing Game]], or [[BattleTech]] Stats Created from [[A Time of War]] or vice versa. With the first two versions of the RPG, the conversions were limited to the Damage Value of the Burst and the range being 1 point of damage = 5d6+3. With the 3rd, 3rd & 4th Edition of the RPG, it got a LOT more complicated. Splash/Blast Characteristic, Incendiary, Number of Role Playing Game Shots consumed in a BattleTech Burst, Values to use in Infantry Platoon Creation, etc. If the Sourcebook provided the Stat, then we must faithfully reproduce it, but in the case of [[:Category:BattleArmor Weapons]] it is not this simple, the RPG Stats for many of these weapons have left off the Shots per burst, power consumed per shot, power consumed per burst, or many of the other values.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==26 April 2011==<br />
Fanon (again)...<br />It has been suggested (not by me this time) to remove fanon content from BTW. See discussion at [[User talk:Frabby#Fanon]].<br />
<br />
==06 March 2011==<br />
Condensing all sources InfoBoxes into one<br><br />
I have recently turned my attention to the real world side of BattleTech - stuff like writing articles for any and all BT products out there to fill in holes in our Products collection. As a first step, I'm going to turn the [[:Template:InfoBoxProduct]] into the sole InfoBox template for any and all BT products. InfoBoxes BC, Novel, Book & Fiction are going to be deleted and merged into Products.<br><br />
"If anyone here can show just cause why they may not be lawfully joined together, let him speak now - or forever hold his peace" :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 17:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Will you be making the fields in IFB Product conditional? I have no problem with it as long as that happens. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Not exactly sure if I understand what you mean, sorry. Incidentially, please see my help request regarding the Template syntax on BTW's forum. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::New InfoBoxProduct mostly done, but I've run into a coding issue or two - please help. See [[Template talk:InfoBoxProduct]]. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 08:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==05 March 2011==<br />
*New Tables: Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to make some very nice looking tables for manufacturing and planet ownership (like this one [[New Oslo]] and this one [[Gorton, Kingsley, and Thorpe Enterprises]]). I don't in any way want to discourage that person. Can we talk about the grey background though? The black text is not so bad but the blue, red, and purple page links feel really hard on my eyes. I tried adjusting my monitor to make sure it wasn't just me. With maxed out brightness I can see that it isn't as bad but I'm only having this problem with the new tables. I just want to throw out the idea of using a white background for easy readability and maybe hear why grey was chosen. I'm hoping to start a positive discussion of color choices and readability and not just complaining about grey table backgrounds. Thx.--[[User:Orcmaul|Orcmaul]] 05:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
: It was Neuling. The grey looks okay on my browser. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 05:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Then my thanks to Neuling for the pursuit of excellent tables. Just whipped up a quick table to highlight the difference it makes. Have a look and discuss. If you wanted to preserve the grey look without the darkness may I suggest lightgrey or silver? --[[User:Orcmaul|Orcmaul]] 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
{|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"<br />
|-<br />
| Black || White || Red || Blue || Purple<br />
|- style="background: white"<br />
| text || style="color: #white"| text || style="color: #red"| text || style="color: #blue"| text || style="color: #purple"| text<br />
|- style="background: lightgrey"<br />
| text || style="color: #white"| text || style="color: #red"| text || style="color: #blue"| text || style="color: #purple"| text<br />
|- style="background: silver"<br />
| text || style="color: #white"| text || style="color: #red"| text || style="color: #blue"| text || style="color: #purple"| text<br />
|-style="background: grey"<br />
| text || style="color: #white"| text || style="color: #red"| text || style="color: #blue"| text || style="color: #purple"| text<br />
|- style="background: black"<br />
| text || style="color: #white"| text || style="color: #red"| text || style="color: #blue"| text || style="color: #purple"| text<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:::Hey, I can make the tables without the background, that is a solution, because the background is that of the actual browser. Talk to me and we will find a solution together. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 06:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::I have two thoughts on how to proceed. --[[User:Orcmaul|Orcmaul]] 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::#Minimum change. <br />
::::#*Drop the grey background.<br />
::::#*The two pixel border is nice for giving the table some visual presence so keep that.<br />
::::#Implement a new table class in common.css. <br />
::::#*Have it set to add the 2 pixel border automatically.<br />
::::#*maybe punch up the heading color to make it slightly more distinct. <br />
::::#**For heading colors I could see a lightblue, a slightly darker grey than the current F2F2F2, or mimic the sarna skin heading color (looks like gold to me). <br />
::::#*It could be called a sarnatable and would help provide a standard table class<br />
::::#**does not interfere with anything that inherits wikitable settings<br />
::::#**implements a good manual of style for the wiki without extra formating commands in each table<br />
::::#**saves on typing and formatting for you and all other table creators<br />
::::#**lets us revise all the tables with one code change to the css if the site appearance changes.<br />
<br />
==02 February 2011==<br />
*Subpages: Some articles contain hefty amounts of tables, and I'm in two minds about it: On one hand, those tables contain good hard data; on the other hand, I prefer a nicely written summary as an article. I've been thinking about shoving such content into sub-pages. Comments on the general idea please: Do we want sub-pages or do we want to avoid them? (Discussion sparked by [[Talk:Dropships - Transportcapacity]].) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
:More often than not, I tend to lean towards Wikipedia's policies when I'm uncertain what is best for this project. However, while I would prefer to avoid sub-pages as a rule, I could see the advantage in their existence as a way to keep well-written and large articles from being unnecessarily lengthened by tables. In that case, where a table would naturally be embedded, I would think a prominent link to a sub-page would probably be appropriate and effective. One point, though: the sub-page must also have a link back to the mother article.<br />
:Continuing thought: why not have these tables exist just as themselves and so labeled (ex: "Table of DropShip Transport Capacities"), with a "For more information, see Table of DropShip Transport Capacities" statement added where appropriate to the main article?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
::I agree - Tables without story/summary putting it into context means nothing. Also - The formats for some of the "tables" I've seen are probably not what we want to go with? Just my two cents. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 03:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==10 August 2009==<br />
*[[Policy_Talk:Manual_of_Style#Past_tense_in_articles_about_vehicles.3F]]: Discussion as to whether all articles should be written from a past tense or a tense dependent upon the article content. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*[[Talk:Draconis_Combine#House_Kurita]]: regarding breaking Kurita family data out from the Draconis Combine article. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==04 August 2009==<br />
*[[Talk:Free Worlds League]]: regarding the use of more academic-style of providing research sources and citations. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
*[[Category talk:Inner Sphere Commands]]: asking for consensus opinion regarding the creation of articles with no content. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==25 July 2009==<br />
*[[Category_talk:Characters#Only_Sub-Categories.3F]]: asking for consensus opinion regarding removing all characters from the main Characters category (and into appropriate sub-categories). --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==23 July 2009==<br />
*[[Policy:Verifiability]]: asking for a consensus review by BTW editors for this policy candidate. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==19 January 2009==<br />
*[[Talk:Concord of Kapteyn]]: Proposal for a new category covering laws, treaties, etc. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:20, 19 January 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==20 December 2007==<br />
*[[Talk:Elemental]]: Regarding the status of the cleanup tag on the article. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 07:31, 20 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
[[Category:BattleTechWiki|Request For Comment]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Policy_Talk:Fanon&diff=179505Policy Talk:Fanon2011-04-29T13:02:37Z<p>PerkinsC: Formulaic Determination of Values? Fanon or Canon?</p>
<hr />
<div>==Discussion==<br />
<br />
Sarna's BattleTechWiki (BTW) began in September 2006 with the mission to be about all things BattleTech, including articles on canon subjects, maps, links, real persion biographies and fan-created fiction. Over those five years, the community (currently made up of 1,128 registered users and numerous unregistered ones) has provided policies that brings a consistent level of expectations to each and every page created here. However, fan created fiction (or 'fanon') has not exploded in the same numbers as most every other area of interest; policies created to guide fanon posters are generally followed by the registered caretakers (admins, editors and writers), just so that the overall site itself does not sink into cluttered chaos. It is the impression of some users on BTW that the fanon, being rough, unpolished and not generally held up to any conventional standards of fiction, is only visited by the posters themselves and do not enjoy a reader-base. In other words, the various forms of non-canon fanon (stories, 'Mech TROs, unit and industry articles) are not seen or read by anyone other than the original poster.<br />
<br />
With that impression in mind, a number of users have suggested that the fanon be split off of BattleTechWiki and moved to the [http://battletechfanon.wikia.com/wiki/BattleTech_Fanon_Wiki BattleTech Fanon Wiki], a wikia established in September of 2008 by falconsclaw787. While the site has been inactive for a while, it is the impression that it was competition with BTW that created a lack of interest. BTW Admin [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] has come up with a plan to transition all fanon over to that site over a period of several months. However, there has to be firm support of interested members (and unregistered posters) for such a move to occur.<br />
<br />
BTW Founder Nic Jansma has given permission for a discussion to be held, in order to gauge opinions on this matter. In the end, the final decision will either be to support the transition of fanon material to the BattleTech Fanon Wiki, to not support the move or to delay a decision until a stronger consensus one way of the other.<br />
<br />
While details as to how the move will be provided later (if the decision supports), a framework has been suggested by Frabby [[User_talk:Frabby#Fanon|here]].<br />
<br />
Below this line, please indicate your opinion and any points you may feel are germaine in support of that opinion. Once discussion has ceased for five days, a judgment by the admins as to the prevailing opinions will be announced.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Question==<br />
'''Do you support or not support the movement of fan-produced fiction and non-canon articles to the BattleTech Fanon Wiki?'''<br />
*I '''support''' the move. The fanon material does require time of interested members of the community to bring the actual pages (tagging, categorization, etc) up to BTW standards, yet policy does not allow the actual fiction to meet the standard expecations of a written BT story. In other words, non-authors are expending their time to make submissions they have no hand in creating meet framework standards, yet the actual submissions themselves are not being appreciated by the readers of BTW (in my opinion). I'd prefer BTW remain a repository of canon material and allow interested fiction writers to build up a similar community to their standards on the fiction wikia. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Support'''. Wiki treatment of the official BT universe and fan fiction do not mesh well, at least not anymore. The infrastructure (a separate Fanon wiki) is already there, we just need to use it. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*I '''support''' to move the fanon content to a separate Fanon wiki.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)s<br />
<br />
*I am '''pensive''' about moving the fanon elsewhere. I guess my biggest thought was about just how much time is spent by non-author editors to clean up the work. So far the fanon stuff I have encoutered here is easy to distinguish from canonical items. I guess part of it is distinguishing between types of fanon items. On one hand there are the lengthy narrative items of... uneven character... that may or may not mesh well with the primary body of work on Sarna. On the other hand there are things like house rules and homemade designs that while not canon, have the potential to actually contribute something to people who play the games. While I have been posting and editing some canon items, my original urge to contribute came from sharing some of the house rules and ideas that my players group hashed out twenty years ago. If not for the provision of a place to post such things I probably would not have started contributing to the canon here. <br />
:At the same time, I can understand the urge to reduce clutter and keep the demands on editors time for fanon to a minimum. There is much here that is left undone and it is not like there is a veritable army of people contributing to the project. I guess it comes down to whether or not the inclusion of fanon works is enough of a draw of viewers and / or editors to make it's inclusion worth the hassle. If things WERE moved, I think both communities would be well served by a strong interrelation of the two sites. While thorough cross linking back and forth would be a minimum, features like a second search box that indexes the fanon wiki being placed on Sarna would be useful. I also wonder if the work of moving all the content (assuming it wasn't simply deleted) would be substantially greater than the editor time the presence of the fanon here consumes. So, I am '''unsure''' of the value of moving the fanon -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* I '''support''' the move, though select fan created '''reference works''' (Like Objective Raids 3067) are perfectly acceptable to me, on a case-by-case basis. I believe current policies actually encourage some users to post their fanfic here, and that is a bad thing. Most of us have probably made our own 'mechs, units, etc. I know I have. But I don't think the wiki is the place for them. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 17:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Thing is, looking at the BT Fanon wiki... well... there is not much there at all, official or otherwise. The whole interest in posting such a thing here is that there is other content here that provides a draw for people. I would be far more interested in calving off the fanon content to something like another tab to a sister site here than moving it to the BT Fanon wiki. What about a mode setting or link on the main page that turns fanon on or off, ie, if you don't wish to see the fanon you don't have to? I totally understand the purpose of the wiki being a reference of canon materials and do think that is a useful resource, but outright banishment of non canon items seems heavy handed. I know that if it were removed altogether my enthusiasm for contributing here would be greatly diminished. I also have no interest at all in posting at Fanon BT Wiki since well... there is nothing else there. The thoughts and ideas of players and users are of interest to the BT community as a whole and so long as there is substantial identification and adequate separation of canon and non canon materials I strongly feel that there is not a need to simply shove the fanon out the back door like the barfly who has overstayed his welcome. -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::LRichardson, one thing that isn't clear in this discussion is that Frabby suggested moving all Fanon over to the BTFW. My understanding is that all the stories, etc. would go, but so would every [[:Category:BattleMechsCustom|custom Mech]], [[:Category:AeroSpace FightersCustom|Aerospace Fighter]], [[:Category:Battle ArmorCustom|Battle Armor]], and [[:Category:Combat VehiclesCustom|Combat Vehicle]] article. Combined with the fiction, that provides 233 articles to start the ball rolling.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::I'd also support an update to Sarna's main page that provides a link to the BTFW. Nice and big, so people see it.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::LRichardson -- I agree with much of what you said... and it emboldens me. People are posting their fanon here because other people have put in the sweat, effort and dedication to produce a quality resource for the entire Battletech community as a whole. It is my belief that very few people come here to read other people's fanon. <br />
::: Also : Please be honest with me. Read the fanon material on this site. Most of it is VERY poorly written and presented. Most of it does not conform to the policies people have worked hard to build on. And it will never be cleaned up because the posting users obviously don't care, and the editors who do are busy editing actual canon articles. Also - I have no interest in seeing online flame wars between fanon users, arguing over who originally wrote what fanon material. That kind of nonsense wastes the time of our dedicated Admins. <br />
::: Question : Why would this move make you less likely to come here? If you want fanon, why not go to the new site? Why not do for the new site what others have done here - work to improve it? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::Yes, I freely admit that much (most?) of the fanon on the site is of... limited appeal. I also admit I have very little interest in reading virtually any of the narrative type articles there. Then again, I have only a limited interest in reading much of the canonical cultural fluff either. While I certainly did enjoy the role playing universe of BT, frankly it was a wargame first and last for me. When I bought it there was no role playing element to speak of aside from a few sidebars a flavor. If officially published and at least professionally edited cultural fluff has little hold for me, fanfic about the brothels on [[Hardcore]] ''certainly'' have little interest to me. I also admit that part of my reluctance to bother with the BT Fanon wiki is a bit of snobbishness in not wanting to really associate with oh so much rich effluence. <br />
::::The fan content that I DO have an interest in reading here is things like house rules, mech designs, technology, scenario's and essays / op ed's about how it all works. These are things that might actually contribute to my, or someone else's enjoyment of the game. The couple of fanon technologies I have posted are things that playtested well and I feel others might enjoy applying to their own play; the fluff I included with one of them was meant to be somewhat toungue-in-cheek and unobtrusive. Similarly some of the fanon tech pages listed I may try out at some point. The appeal in putting it here is that the same people that are looking up official technology and rules might notice (and be interested in) some alternatives. Something tangible that would be lost is the ability to easily link back to canon material in non canon writing. This is why I would be more interested in a clearly separated area of this resource rather than building another from scratch. <br />
::::That said I also strongly agree that there needs to be clear and significant separation between the two, which is why I list my opinion as pensive rather than disagree. The main thing is I would think it a loss if the only mention of such content here was "oh, BTW, there is this other website out here, kthx bbye." When I look up a rule for movement or an item of kit here it would be nice to see a link to some fan based alternatives or contributions, just clearly marked and separated from official content. Just linking with a banner would be unfortunately "merely adequate". If it were moved (and I presume it will be based on the feedback here) I would strongly hope that existing links here to categories of fanon would be redirected to the new location. I would hope that it would not be totally against the rules here to put a fanon link at the bottom of relevant canon pages. The infrastructure here is quality and suggests a decent audience base. I'm glad the resource is here and am happy to contribute to the canonical side of things in addition to posting some of my own stuff. I simply suspect that if my attention were split between two sites with separate policies, formats and (frankly) audiences, my enthusiasm for both would wane to where I would not bother with either. So ultimately, I guess I just suspect there is in fact a baby in that bathwater.... somewhere... -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 19:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::::Thanks for the (kinda) counter point of view. We need those to keep us honest.<br />
:::::I wish there was a technological method in which we could automagically separate fan-created material from articles on canon subjects. However, many of the posters of the fanon are either unregistered, visit only to edit their materials or both. In my experience, they do not seek out the relevant policies to ensure their posts remain separate from the canon portion of the site and so (as you've acknowledged) regular users do the grunt work of confirming the material is fanon (and not canon) and then tag as appropriate. We will still have to confirm something is canon when created from wholecloth, but now it is a simple delete click away (for admins) or a 'considered for deletion' tag for others.<br />
:::::Valid concerns, too, about washing our hands of fanon. I presume when the policy goes live, it will be a news item (which gives it 3-60+ days of main page exposure) and a hyperlink could be added under the 'Other Items of Note' in the Jump Point part of the page for a considerable period of time. The links page, of course, has had the wikia listed since its inception.<br />
:::::House rules, custom equipment....argh. I AM a fan of these types of articles and have probably been the lead on bringing them in as 'essays'. However, I privately acknowledged that all of those that I have brought in here, as an archive for the most interesting essays on long-gone versions of CBT forums or personal fan sites, are not clearly separate from fanon pages, but neither does it necesaarily make sense to move them to a fanon wikia. LRichardson, maybe you and I can craft some sort of submissions 'council' for essays, home rules (which could incorporate custom equipment), etc., where the submission had to meet a certain minimum standard of involvement (registration, maybe?), storage (on a user page, until approved) and formatting (by the poster). We could fork this process, but work in concert with the team working on the possible fanon transition. Interested?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::::Actually, I might just be interested in this, it nicely straddles my general focus on things BT. I will put some thought into how such a role would be defined and what it's standards might be and coem back with a proposal. Provided that some means were in place that content such as rule variants, editorials, and essays could be vetted for inclusion here I would state my opinion as '''agree''' that fanon material, especially that which could be best described as fan-fiction, ought to be moved to the BT Fanon wiki. -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Excellent! May I suggest looking at the essays already posted. There is at least one, I feel, that should not be currently listed, while the others may help you establish a baseline. Contact me on my [[User talk:Revanche|talk page]] when you're ready to start throwing around ideas.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
* I '''support''' the move and concur completely with the above poster regarding the details. This is a good place for quick reference of canon material and, frankly, my confidence in it would increase somewhat without the worry about fanon possibly getting mixed in somewhere.[[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 17:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* I '''support''' the move, because I'm hesitant to modify someone else's fanon work, even if it's just correcting a typo. Restricting Sarna to canon/apocryphal sources would remove that from my life. I do think there should be '''no exceptions''' to this policy: ''Objective Raids: 3067'' is very valuable, but I think it should be referred to as an External Link on the ''Objective Raids'' page.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:I don't recall any policy preventing us from doing editing, but both the fanon tag that discourages it and the sense of most editors that they may be altering a fundamental perspective of a story without the collaboration of the original author definitely affects many who would take action where 'needed'. (I myself constantly have to refrain from fixing apostrophe issues.) <br />
:As to ''Objective Raids: 3067'', we don't host it here (as far as I'm aware). However, because it is a metasource and is widely respected by the fanbase as such, it was deemed notable enough to warrant an ''article''. I'm fine with those, as the article actually has an external reference (ORL 3067, itself) to pull upon. The same cannot be said of fanon 'Mech articles or unit/factory pages.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
*I '''support''' moving the fan content to its own wiki. As Revanche stated above, policing fanon content takes time away from tasks that editors could otherwise be doing while adding little of value to the website. I think it's also sometimes difficult to explain why somebody cannot add their custom ''Atlas'' variant to the ''Atlas'' article when the front page clearly states that fan content is allowed, but we do. In a sense, we have already separated fanon from canon and official content by consensus because the community values the latter much more highly than the former. Really, I think this is just the next logical step in the trajectory the community has been heading. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
*I '''support''' the move, though I am aprehensive for the following reasons:<br />
:It will take work to move them, time which could have been spent on other interests for whoever moves them.<br />
:Articles moved to the BTFW will have embedded BTW links in them, as well as use BTW templates, which we would have to either copy over or hand-edit.<br />
:There are some articles currently tagged as Fanon that I would be more than happy to keep here, as they are high-quality and could benefit visitors, such as Objective Raids: 3067. Where do we draw the line?<br />
:Technically, games like the MUSEs, Neveron, etc are "Fanon", but I think their articles have a good home here.<br />
:Maybe we just have specific categories of Fanon that we disallow: fan-fiction and custom mechs/designs/weapons?<br />
:[[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 04:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Nic, to address the embedded BTW link issue, we could probably get a new Interwiki shortcut made on the BTFW. [http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Interwiki_link Wikia Interwiki overview]. Sarna would have to be added to their Interwiki map, but that doesn't look too difficult.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC) <br />
:::Good one Mbear! That solves my biggest (actually, my only) concern. Now I'm really hard pressed to think of reasons ''against'' the separation. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 13:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Nic, it has been my presumption that notable works by fans deserve ''articles'', describing those works (such as ''OR:3067''). What we're clearing out are pages about fan-created units that exist solely on Sarna and do not exist as a (notable) project outside of BTW. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
*I '''support''' the move personally though I am in a unique position having written some of the published material that is under 'apocryphal' and wishing to add certain material that enhances it to show the author's (mine) original intent and projected developments for TekTeam Technical Services. I may even contribute material up to novel-length stories as well. I am a bit unwilling to want editing beyond spelling and grammar because this is clearly fanfic and not canon. Contributors to Fanon wiki should be allowed to maintain their artistic style as long as it doesn't border on the extremes of violence and obscenity or are otherwise inappropriate because of controversial comtemporary issues being addressed in an insensitive manner.<br />
<br />
:Can we perhaps have some means of announcing new fanon submissions in both the regular BattleTech Wiki as well as the Fanon Wiki to increase exposure for the fanon work as well? One problem that I have seen is that fanon works often go under the radar because no one knows that they have been posted. [[User:Tekteam26|Tekteam26]] 10:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Tekteam26, maybe Frabby should confirm this, but apocryphal material is not being shed; only fanon. However, if a leadership develops over at BTFW, there is no reason articles located here discussing apocryphal subjects can't also have an External Links section that directs straight to support fanon. Would that meet your expectations?<br />
::As for announcing new submissions, I wouldn't close the door on that here and now. We'd have to see how BTFW's members sought to enhance the visability and standards of that site before creating a feature on this site to announce new submissions (which we currently don't even do for our canon material).<br />
::Curious: do you think you'll get involved in the leadership over there?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't know yet if I will get involved in the leadership at fanon wiki, certainly not within the next year because I will be deploying overseas this summer. But I would like to have some input into the final form and also how we can properly support quality Battletech fanfic. A lot of times, people don't even know that it exists. On the other hand, there should perhaps be some semblance of vetting a piece of fanfic before it goes it so that this particular fanon site gets the reputation of having material that stands out in its quality rather than having a bunch of munchtech material dumped into it. That would require a lot more 'care and feeding' of course.[[User:Tekteam26|Tekteam26]] 10:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* I '''support''' the move, however, i do have a question about hybrid articles, say if you have a piece of equipment in the canon, and most of the stats are published in the canon, but there is a value that is normally in the canon that has been left out but there is a canon formula for determining the value, what do we do?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Template_talk:InfoBoxCreature&diff=179402Template talk:InfoBoxCreature2011-04-28T20:39:39Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Creatue Infobox */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Creatue Infobox==<br />
This is my first selfcreated infobox template, please can anyone, how is a expert (Mbear) i mean you ;), take a look on it, and fix some thinks, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 16:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:looks ok from what i could see, lenght to length, weight to mass to match copy section.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 13:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, I agree with Cameron. I'm not sure what you want me to fix. It looks like you've got everything you need here, and the box should work.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 15:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Okidoki thanks guys.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 16:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Do you really want the RPG stats in the infobox? I wouldn't do that for two reasons: 1) We simply don't have those stats for many (maybe even most) of the alien creatures; 2) they are just game rules, no canonical facts within the universe. Game rules can change (for example, if AToW 2nd Ed. comes) and then you would have to rework all creature articles for the new stats. But that's not an infobox problem, it's more a question of Do we need that game information in the article?[[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 20:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hy Frabby, at 1.) it is my fist infobox, when you make changes feel free. At 2.) hmm need we the game infos? I think yes (my opinion), some none registred users use sarna. net as a data base and information source, i cant tell how the users have the books, or copyies, and i think it is ok, and yes i want to update the alien creatures pages, and in the future to, when new infos published, but thanks for your response, i appriciate it.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::1)handled like any stats that are not present, 2) that is why game stats are on the infobox in the first place, if the game stats are in the info box for weapons, then they belong in the infobox for creatures... 3) I could see subpages for each of the RPGs, from Mechwarrior Companion (for second edition) to CBT Companion (for Third Edition) to what ever the creature suppliment is for A Time of War. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC) <br />
<br />
:Something that I think is missing in the infobox is the zoological name (like ''Panteras Ignus Jardinalis'' for the Jardinian Firecat). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 20:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The Zooalogical name would definately be useful, for those that have it... there is a way to get stats that are present to not appear in the infobox...--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== InfoBox Gone Screwie ==<br />
<br />
Same think that blasted the weapon infoboxes blasted this one... not sure the cause--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Template_talk:InfoBoxCreature&diff=179400Template talk:InfoBoxCreature2011-04-28T20:36:58Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Creatue Infobox */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Creatue Infobox==<br />
This is my first selfcreated infobox template, please can anyone, how is a expert (Mbear) i mean you ;), take a look on it, and fix some thinks, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 16:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:looks ok from what i could see, lenght to length, weight to mass to match copy section.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 13:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::Yes, I agree with Cameron. I'm not sure what you want me to fix. It looks like you've got everything you need here, and the box should work.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 15:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::Okidoki thanks guys.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 16:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Do you really want the RPG stats in the infobox? I wouldn't do that for two reasons: 1) We simply don't have those stats for many (maybe even most) of the alien creatures; 2) they are just game rules, no canonical facts within the universe. Game rules can change (for example, if AToW 2nd Ed. comes) and then you would have to rework all creature articles for the new stats. But that's not an infobox problem, it's more a question of Do we need that game information in the article?[[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 20:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::1)handled like any stats that are not present, 2) that is why game stats are on the infobox in the first place, if the game stats are in the info box for weapons, then they belong in the infobox for creatures... 3) I could see subpages for each of the RPGs, from Mechwarrior Companion (for second edition) to CBT Companion (for Third Edition) to what ever the creature suppliment is for A Time of War. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC) <br />
:Something that I think is missing in the infobox is the zoological name (like ''Panteras Ignus Jardinalis'' for the Jardinian Firecat). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 20:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Hy Frabby, at 1.) it is my fist infobox, when you make changes feel free. At 2.) hmm need we the game infos? I think yes (my opinion), some none registred users use sarna. net as a data base and information source, i cant tell how the users have the books, or copyies, and i think it is ok, and yes i want to update the alien creatures pages, and in the future to, when new infos published, but thanks for your response, i appriciate it.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::The Zooalogical name would definately be useful, for those that have it... there is a way to get stats that are present to not appear in the infobox...--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=BattleTechWiki:Masthead&diff=179392BattleTechWiki:Masthead2011-04-28T19:26:00Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Weapons infobox */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[BTW:A]]}}<br />
<br />
Post in the section '''Admin Help Requests''' to get proper attention to the issue/problem. Please be specific and sign your request (by adding <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> at the end).<br />
<br />
== Current Sarna.net Wiki Administrators ==<br />
* [[User:Nicjansma | NicJansma]] ([[User talk:Nicjansma|Talk]] to me) <br />
* [[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ([[User talk:Revanche|Talk]] at me)<br />
* [[User:Xoid|Xoid]] ([[User talk:Xoid|Talk]] to me) '''(non-active)'''<br />
* [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] ([[User talk:Scaletail|Talk]] to me)<br />
* [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|Talk]] to me)<br />
* [[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]] ([[User talk:Ebakunin|Talk]] to me)<br />
* [[User:Mbear|Mbear]] ([[User talk:Mbear|Talk]] to me)<br />
<br />
Auto-updated list found [[Special:Listusers/sysop|here]]<br />
<br />
==Admin Help Requests (Outstanding)==<br />
'''Make your request here (and sign with 4 tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>))'''<br />
<br />
===Weapons infobox===<br />
Has gone haywire. Since I don't know how the infobox code works I don't want to muck with it further. Take a look at [[Autocannon/10]] for example, or I guess pretty much any weapon page... -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 17:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:What does "gone haywire" mean? What should I be seeing on the Autocannon/10 page that isn't correct?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Hmm... Well, when I look at it right now the box has disappeared and has turned into a text only list at the top of the article, justified left. Now, I use one of the alternate themes when viewing the site, perhaps that has something to do with it? <pokepokepoke>... Sure enough, the issue is only occurring when I am using the "Modern" skin on my preferences page, the box looks fine when I use the Sarna skin. Hmm... -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::Mbear, I don't see what LRichardson reports, but other than the infobox, the page is bleached of color and the sidebar is occluded from under the site logo all the way to 'MechForce (Amiga)', with the exception of the search box. I'm using IE7 (at the moment) and 'Sarna' skin.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::I was the last one to edit the Weapons Info Box, and any mistakes i made would have shown up well before now (i checked), i have not made changes to the format of the imfobox... what else could be causing it? are any other templates getting funky?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===PDF files not acceptable?===<br />
A while back I composed myself a PDF of a blank mapsheet. It is a vector graphics based file suitable for high resolution printing. I wanted to link to it on the mapsheets page I created but I cannot upload it. Rasterizing the image would make it huge as the file is referenced at 600dpi x 27" x 22", as a PDF it is a managable size. Any suggestions? -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 04:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:A while ago we deliberately limited the file formats that could be uploaded. The wiki format is unsuitable as a file repository and (iirc) our Bureaucrat and site owner Nic said it generated too much traffic. We do have a download section on this site, and I would suggest you contact Nic Jansma ([[User:Nicjansma]]) and ask him to put your PDF there. (Admittedly, the download section is sort of a stepchild on this site and has not been upgraded for years - one of the many things on the to-do list... :) ). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 05:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Makes sense. Thanks for the direction.-- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Quick-Strike Rules Article Request===<br />
Hello there. Since were getting a bunch of products for the ''Quick-Strike Rules'', i think we may need have a article dedicate it. Unit Cards are for use of the new version of Battleforce, but their intended for Quick-Strike. Is possible to find someone write it up? I'm not that savy writing up game system type articles. I can try, but they don't not always write up good articles on game rules as i would like. Would there be someone out there would could write this article? It seems becoming bigger thing since these rules and products are also linked to [[BattleForce]] as products like unit cards go -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Go ahead and try (aka, "'''[[Be Bold]]'''"). Even if the wording doesn't come out good, another editor may eventually clean it up. On big subjects, I personally prefer badly-worded content to no content at all (YMMV). However, that only applies to high-profile topics. Everybody contributing on BTW should generally try to write good articles so as not to tie up other editor's time for copyediting the sloppy work of others. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Cleanup Template===<br />
Hello Admins, can we make the [[Template:cleanup|Cleanup Template]] a little bit, (the words are in my head, but my english writing :()...i think he needs a new outfit ;), it looks very sterile and and, any ideas or response.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 02:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC) <br />
:Can you elaborate on what you feel is wrong with the template? Personally, I like short and concise wording and I think the template conveys exactly what it is meant to say in a sober, matter-of-fact way. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Suggestion:Transclusion===<br />
one thing that might be useful is mastering/implementing wiki transclusion (it scares me too much to try at this point, but its the only thing that appears to fit the bill)... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
main question is whither or not transclusion works here... if so, what things could be transcluded?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Mech variant Pages==== <br />
(Transcluding the "Overview" and/or "Battle History" Fluff from the Mechs Main Page) with the stats on the side being for the specific variant, This would have the advantage of transcluded Text being edited in one spot and the rest being page specific. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Best handled in [[Project_BattleMechs#Variant_Pages]]--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I see what you're saying, but I think the very concept of transclusion is baffling to the majority of users, so it would be difficult to /require/. I guess I'd have no problem with an expert back-adapting an article to transclude, but I wouldn't make it part of the 'how to start' templates we have for beginning editors (and I still use those templates, myself).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::i've been more looking at transclusion with an "ohh my, that looks easy to do but hard to learn" perspective.. ::bugging eyes::, wonder if it would be easy enought to put into transclusion specific weapons or mech templates. Is there any one here with experience?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] can do so rather easily, but he is more of a [[Colonial Marshal]] admin and isn't here too much. In the end, this project would have to be undertaken by someone who wants to work thru all affected 'Mechs and is willing to learn transclusion to do it. I've got the latter skills, but am too widely focused to deal only with 'Mechs. And, it sounds like some consensus on variant pages needs to be reached, before picking up that scale of a project, anyhow. I believe [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] is the acting project head of [[BTW:PBM]] at the moment; I recommend you try and pitch your concept to him over there. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Weapon Variant Pages====<br />
Transclusion would Also be useful in Weapons, granted, on the BattleTech Scale, an Autocannon/20 is an Autocannon/20... But I am planning to do/have done some manufacturer / brand specific subpages for the weapons that would transclude the Macro/BattleTech Fluff from the main page for the weapon, and have Manufacturer/Brand specific RPG Stats, Eventually planning to do page and book references for where the information comes from.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Naming of Weapons/Equipment Variant Pages===<br />
Which would be preferred for these? Currently i am doing "Manufacturer or Brand"/"Model" (with disambig style weapon type) so it is [[General Motors/Whirlwind (AC-5)]] for the Marauders weapon. but I wonder if it would be more (useful/in keeping with the nomenclature here) to do [[Autocannon/5/General Motors/Whirlwind]]--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:The problem with using "/"s is that the wiki interprets that to be a subpage. As it is now, the Whirlwind article is a subpage of General Motors, not Autocannon/5, which I assume to be your intention. Of course, there is also the problem that MediaWiki thinks "Autocannon/5" is a subpage of "Autocannon". --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::not really a problem... would be better if WikiMedia interpeted SRM-4 as a subpage for SRM as it does Autocannon/5 as a subpage of Autocannon - this would better fit BattleTech Nomenclature. the essence of my question was whither {Manufacturer/Brand (disambig)} would fit or if it was deemed better to do {Weapon Type/SubType/Manufacturer/Brand}. I like the {Manufacturer/Brand (disambig)} style because it can get away with doing the brand name or add the disambig for equipment type if necessary as opposed to using the larger name space required for the page to branch off the Autocannon/5 page (less typing is always better)--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 16:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Category: Dark Age Mechs===<br />
I've been looking at the [[:Category: Dark Age Mechs|category]] that currently exists with that name, because it always bugs me that it doesn't fit in with the naming conventions used for other BattleMech categories. In my mind, it should read '''Category:Dark Age BattleMechs''', but it isn't just BattleMechs, as IndustrialMechs are included in the category too. I'm thinking it should then be '''Category:Dark Age 'Mechs''' (with the apostrophe), but then it still seems like it is different than what the name ''suggests.'' Help me wrap my mind around this?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::(Using heavy duty scotch tape for wrapping of Rev's mind) Hi there. I have not been involved with the new Dark Age 'Mech. However, i've noticed mis-labelling of sorts. [[Carbine]] for instance resemble the [[ConstructionMech]], but its not same machine. I believe what defines a mech is dark age is something constructed after the During or after the Jihad. Were starting to see alot age old Succession War 'Mechs as well Clan Era machine show up. Xanthos for example is Age of War design, yet it was resurrected during the Jihad, but it appeared in MWDA game system first. How do you define such large era machine? I think best way to keep it simple. Since the at moment, Dark Age Era for Battletech starts immediately after the Jihad <3081>(which i don't agree it should.) Were going see alot of the old fan favorites end up in the Jihad. Dark Age mech used to only exist in its own time period. Original, Dark Age ment it priemer and was used in with MechWarrior click game or was something related to it, like characters. Were going have alot dublication with category if were not careful. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Admin To-Do List===<br />
[[Talk:3053|Locis']] comments got me thinking about how we've been handling policy creation. I know that some policies that need to be written have fallen through the cracks. I would like to suggest that admins update the [[BattleTechWiki:ToDo |To Do List]] with policies that need creating when a discussion reaches consensus with a link back to the talk page in question. I know that policy writing is a pain, but it needs to be done. I'm probably the most guilty party here, but I think if we can get better organized, it will make the process easier. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Agreed. I'll start considering needed policies, look around WP for inspiration. Would like to stress, though, that policies are the purview of all Editors, not just Admins. This isn't aimed at Scaletail, at all: every visitor here gets a voice on BTW, and staying silent implies endorsement of the consensus. Readers that haven't edited are just as responsible for the direction of the wiki as the most industrious Editors and Admins. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I've spent a lot of time reading various Wikipedia policies and found subject areas I think we should address. However, we've got a lot more narrow scope than WP and I'm fairly certain that these policies won't address all of our needs. All Editors (not just admins) are free to suggest ideas (and even to write policy). --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Blocking Spammers===<br />
I've noticed a recent trend where spammers are creating User pages in which to hawk their links. '''Administrators''', please block the IP before deleting the page, so that we can start to cut down on these site attacks.<br />
Steps:<br />
# On [[Special:RecentChanges]], click on '''Block''' first.<br />
# Select a term length (my default is infinite) from '''Expiry'''.<br />
# Select ''Spamming links to external sites'' in the '''Reason''' field.<br />
# Make sure ''Prevent account creation '' and ''Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IPs they try to edit from '' are checked.<br />
# Click the '''Block this user''' button<br />
# Go back to [[Special:RecentChanges]] and click on the User page.<br />
# Delete it with fervor.<br />
Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
: Hopefully the ReCaptcha plugin will help a bit with this. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Watchlist===<br />
Why does the option show all doesn't work? I can only see changes from the last 7 days but the option show all should show me changes from the last 30 days. --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:31, 11 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
:I'm not sure. Nic? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:06, 20 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
::The default "max days" is 7 -- but I've bumped this up to 30 days for you. I couldn't verify it was working properly -- please let me know if you still only see 7 days. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 17:40, 1 March 2009 (PST)<br />
:::Still strange, in my preferences I tried to set the "Days to show in recent changes:" higher then 7 and also set the "Maximum number of days to show in watchlist:" higher but anything higher then 7 will be set to 7 and when I use the "all" option on my watchlist I get about 10 days. --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 07:43, 3 March 2009 (PST)<br />
<br />
===Fan Fiction Category===<br />
I was checking out the fan fiction page, and it seems to have a lot of images in the fan fiction category. I would suggest making a sub category for fan made images. I created a Category:Fan Made Art which is a sub-category of Category:Fan Fiction. I also made a Template:Fanon Art page. Adding the <nowiki>{{Fanon Art}}</nowiki> tag to those images instead of <nowiki>{{Fanon}}</nowiki> will add the same red fanon tag at the top of the page, but add it the subcategory instead. --[[User:Seth|Seth]] 23:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:I agree with the idea solely based on the wish to remove the images from the main category. But I wouldn't want to differentiate the plethora of existing Fan Work beyond that. Also, suggest to rename the sub-cat "Fanmade Images". [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Admin Help Requests (Completed) ==<br />
''Please move help requests here after the request is answered, with the latest (according to last answer) sorted to the top of this section.'''<br />
:''Note: Requests pertaining to specific spambots/spam users/spam edits are not archived. Please simply delete such requests here after dealing with the problem. The same goes for other minor requests such as the move or deletion of a misnamed article page.''<br />
<br />
===Crybaby throwing a tantrum===<br />
Maybe I'm just being dense, but I can't get the front page display the reworked news section correctly for the life of me. Now I somehow messed up the front page (not too badly luckily). Help appreciated in getting the formatting back on track. :( [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 09:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like you accidentally deleted the table row that holds the Chatterweb stuff. I put it back and I think we're all good now.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::"Assistance Appreciated" (as in, Award 2nd ribbon given, plus Problem Solver award) :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 12:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Davion Brigade of Guards===<br />
Hy guys, i found a problem in the Davion Brigade section, i cant see the unit insignia images, is it a wiki problem, then the images are uploaded.Thanks--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 14:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
:? Looks fine to me - the insignia are all there where they belong. I guess there's been a connection problem on your end or something like that. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 18:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Help Request in labeling a non-canon image(s)===<br />
Howdy, someone uploaded a non-canon imagine of the [[:File:2750th.png|Terran Hegemony Map]]. There no label stating it is fan-made and not a product of canon source. Does anyone know what were suppose to do about this? I've not dealth with a direct png image before. Usually these things have page that gives direction of the imagine. Someone thought that image that was uploaded was canon. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 02:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
:OK. What you have to do is put in a link to the image like this: <nowiki>[[Image:2750th.png|Terran Hegemony Map]]</nowiki>. This will include the image on the page. From there, you can click the image and you'll be taken to the image's wiki page. Then you can add the tag you need.<br />
:In this case it looks like someone has beaten you to it.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::It was me, I stumbled onto the source of the image. I was able track the non-canon image from person whom uploaded them. I've labeled it non-canon long with bunch of others that were uploaded as well. I'm sorry for cause a fuss, but i hated to see Sarna.net rep possibly damaged. Making people think we have unorganized non-canon stuff looming around possing as canon material. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Update to DropShip and WarShip infoboxes===<br />
[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] and [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] made a request on [[User_talk:Mbear#DropShip_-_WarShip_etc...|my talk page]] to make these modifications:<br />
# Update the DropShip infobox to include an '''Escape Pod/Life Boat''' line like the WarShip infobox.<br />
# Update the DropShip infobox to include an '''AeroSpace Fighter capacity''' line.<br />
# Update the WarShip infobox to include an '''AeroSpace Fighter capacity''' line.<br />
I've taken care of the first request. It won't show up until an editor puts in the Escape Pod/Life Boat information so existing DropShip articles don't break.<br />
<br />
On #2 and #3, I pushed back a bit and suggested that we consider '''Small Craft capacity''' instead of '''AeroSpace Fighter capacity'''. Ships like the [[Nekohono'o]] class can carry 6 ASF + 9 Battle Taxis for example, but they can also swap out the taxis and carry 15 ASF if required.<br />
<br />
Any thoughts on this?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 13:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Since I haven't heard anything, I went ahead and implemented the new lines. They're in place now.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
::add both small craft and asf capacity... The masses of the bay are differnt--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Moratorium Periods===<br />
Hey guys - what's the easiest way to find out if the material from a particular work is fair game to be cited in an article? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 21:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Usually, the moratorium tag in the article about a given work will state when the moratorium expires. See [[Historical Turning Points: Galtor]] as an example - it says the moratorium on this publication expires after 1 April 2010. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]]<br />
:Hy falls Record Sheets: 3060 Unabridged under the moratorium phase or it is done.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 09:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
::According to http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=27_35_208&products_id=2417, the moratorium period expired. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Request for Article Review===<br />
I was wondering if I could get a review of my [[Battle of Mars]] article. I'm always interested in feedback. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Requesting template When?===<br />
Now that we are working on year pages and trying to improve date info it would be very useful to have Template:When to mark need of more info.<br />
See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:When Template:When]<br />
--[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Done. I would suggest adding some language to [[Policy:Year Pages]] about making sure that dates in articles are unambiguous. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== SturmFeur(Update)) ===<br />
The [[SturmFeur(update)]] is directly from 3039 which I now understand is copyrite infrengement. I do not want to claim ownership for someone elses work. How do I create this page and keep it cannon? <br />
<br />
Also the orginal article [[SturmFeur]] article for 3026 is completely different from the article in 3039. I'm not sure how to merge them. <br />
<br />
I have removed the content from the [[SturmFeur(update)]] page until we can get the copyrite resolved.<br />
--[[User:jherbert2|jherbert2]] 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)jherbert<br />
:Thanks for being so proactive on this, jherbert2. I commented on the [[SturmFeur(update)]]'s discussion page. Don't give up; its not easy, but each of the existing articles are labors of love. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Greetings===<br />
I wish the Admins and other user's a merry christmas and a habby new year.Lets roll on. [[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 08:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Subcategory for C3 equipped unit?===<br />
Hi, I haven't contributed much but I have found the site to be very useful so thanks for all your work. I've used BTW a lot lately as I have recently started to build up my mini collection and BTW has helped me with selecting ones I want to buy. I have a Tai Sho and since it has C3 Master capability, I would like to pick up some compatible Slave-equipped Mechs. I was wondering if it would be possible to set up a subcategory of units that have C3 equipment? That would be helpful in picking lances as well as buying minis. If I can help, please let me know. [[User:Maddog3025|Maddog3025]] 05:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:For all of the other Editors here, thanks for the appreciation. I'm not too heavily involved in the [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|BattleMech Project]] anymore, but its gratifying to hear that people are using our work in such an involved way ''and'' get feedback on it.<br />
:As for the Category, I think it is a great idea. If a category has a perceived need and it can be filled with more than a minimum number of articles, then it is, frankly, needed. So, don't feel like you need approval to build it, ok? Now, the issue will be in finding someone who has the interest in doing so, if you do not. As editorship on BTW is open to everyone, it is no one person's specific responsibility. My suggestion would be to look at Project:BattleMechs and find someone listed there who is active now and approach them. Or, if you let me know, I can start the category for you and show you how to tag one such article, so you can go in and find the others. (It'd be relatively easy, using C3 as a search term, I'd think.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::I've created some new categories to do this. I'll be adding them to the appropriate 'Mech pages in the future.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::Of course it would help if I had put the link in place: [[:Category:C3_Equipped_BattleMechs]]--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::All done.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::Wow, that was quick! Thank you Mbear. Revanche- you are welcome for the compliment. I've been using the site a lot and its been handy on many occasions. This format is so great as it allows you to sort things in so many ways. I looked through the vehicle list and noted some missing ones, so I'll be glad to create a few of those and you guys can tidy up my crude efforts. Have a good weekend, all! [[User:Maddog3025|Maddog3025]] 01:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::Hi again, I guess I won't quite let this thread die. I apologize if I leave this request in the wrong place. I have created the Bandit hovercraft and I am working on the Plainsman. I think I've done a bit better than my previous attempt on the Alacorn. However, if you have any tips for me to improve my work (and maybe reduce the amount of bugs you guys have to fix, please shoot me an email. Thanks again. ```` {{Unsigned|Maddog3025|11:37, 31 January 2010 }}<br />
::::::: I'll take a look. Look at the article history to see my changes as an idea on how to step in the right direction. Also, just a tip: its a nice idea to wikilink to articles you mention in your post, to make it easier to have people look at what you'd like, such as [[Plainsman]] and [[Bandit]]. Glad you're onboard. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC) <br />
<br />
=== Plagiarism ===<br />
I noticed that most of the content on the [[Free_Worlds_League/History]] page is taken directly from the [[20 Year Update]] section on the Free Worlds League. (The military ranks and history sections appear to be new.) I went ahead and put the Plagarism template on the relevant sections. (I'm not able to get to it right now.) --[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 01:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks, Mbear. It doesn't require fixing by the discovery, just tagging, such as you did. The [[BattleTechWiki:ToDo|To Do List]] will count and track such tags, for Editors seeking something to improve upon. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
=== Updated Weapon InfoBox Template ===<br />
''Not a help request, but I wanted you to see this.'' I put together a lot of information about Capital Weapons, which include an '''extreme''' range bracket. Since the current weapon infobox doesn't have the extreme range data field, and not all weapons have it, I created a new InfoBox that will include the extreme range bracket info if it's present. This will allow the Aerospace fighter ranges on the appropriate weapon page, without breaking the existing content.<br />
<br />
I named the sample infobox [[Template:InfoBoxWeaponMB]] so I wouldn't overwrite anything. You can see it in action at [[User:Mbear/Infoboxtest]]. If you like the update, it should be easy to copy to the existing template. Have a good one!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Good job, man. Great addition. Feel free to replace the exisiting with that one. I can't see how consensus would not be in approval. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== MWDA Dossiers: How do I link to local copies? ===<br />
You may remember that [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] pointed to the MWDA dossiers on Warrenborn.com and I separated the multipage PDF files into a set of single page PDFs ([[User:Mbear/MWDADossiers|listed here]]). My question is how to update the reference links to point to these local resources. The [[Atlas_(BattleMech)|Atlas]] page uses a complete URL for the link, and I'm wondering if that's the best solution or if I should use a '''File''' or '''Image''' tag. Thanks! --[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:For this specific instance, I think linking to them as is done now works just fine. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 05:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Unfortunately, linking to them like that fails. For some reason, URL links don't need a pipe between the address and the link title, only a space. I've removed the piping from the Atlas examples. Oh, and I agree: I like linking to them as you have done, also. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 05:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::OK. I'll just use the standard link type <nowiki>[[URL Linktext]]</nowiki> Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::I think you mean <nowiki>[URL Linktext]</nowiki> (i.e., one open/close bracket each), but saying so, just in case.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I wasn't incorrect; I was testing you. {{Emoticon| ;) }} You passed! Congratulations! Go get yourself a cookie.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::"[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nom Nom, nom nom]." While it's the thought that counts, now I have to re-log into Sarna to replace my cookie. Thanks, anyway. {{Emoticon| ;) }}--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Question:Uploading Pictures===<br />
Currently Engaged in creating pages for infantry weapons, wondering how/where to upload images. Main issue beyond my ignorance is Whither or not to Upload the Weapon images which for the first batch would be Sourced from TR3026. I Make the Assumption that this would be OK since we have Mech Images Here. The Other Alternative is to use WikiMedia Commons images from Real World Weapons that resemble the TR3026 artwork. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Completed and moved--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Product scans are fine. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks, is there a Help/Procedure article for how to upload images? --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::DOH Never Mind, Found it in the Menu Bar on the Right under Tools... Now, how do you alter the name of an Image File? Wasn't Thinking when I uploaded the First 10 or so. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Just click 'move' at the top tab menu. It works that way for articles, too. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::"Move" does not appear to be available on the image page, the only tabs that i see are "File", "Discussion", "Edit", "History", "Unwatch".--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Move is actually only for Admins {{emoticon|:P}}. I can move it for you if you give me the exact name. The easiest thing to do, though, is to upload the image again with the correct name and place a delete request on the old image. It's what I do on a lot of other wikis. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Was wondering if that was the only way, will do. Thanks all.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Completed and moved--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Question:Naming Pictures===<br />
What is considered "Best Practices" when naming image files, IOW which File Name is Preferred for a filesourced from Page 123 of Technical Readout 3026 depicting a Dart Gun.<br />
*A: "Dart_Gun.jpg"<br />
*B: "Dart_Gun-TR3026"<br />
*C: "Dart_Gun_-_TR3026_p123.jpg"<br><br />
PRO for C is that the Book and page from the origin is included in the file name, the CON is that it is an aweful lot of typing.<br />
PRO for A is that it has less typing, CON is that does not allow for multiple pictures from different sources.<br />
PRO for B is that it allows for multiple named sources while also having a reduced name.<br />
--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I use "A", then use the description to list to rest of the information. Check out [[:File:Atlas_II.jpg]] for an example. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::the first 10 or 15 I uploaded used *C (search for TR3026), I would appreciate renaming (since both renaming and uploading again w/deletion of old would require Admin Intervention)... then i came to my senses... Question still remains for Duplicates w/Newer sources, such as weapons that had artwork published in each of [[MechWarrior,_First_Edition|MechWarrior: First Edition]], [[Technical Readout: 3026]], [[MechWarrior,_Second_Edition|MechWarrior: Second Edition]], [[MechWarrior Companion]], [[MechWarrior,_Third Edition|MechWarrior: Third Edition]] or [[Classic BattleTech RPG]], [[LosTech: The MechWarrior Equipment Guide]], and [[Classic BattleTech Companion]]. One thing that I am thinking of is weapon pages w/images of each iteration similar to what I saw on a page for a BattleMech. would it be <br />
*A: Dart_Gun.jpg, Dart_Gun(1).jpg, Dart_Gun(2).jpg<br />
*B: Dart_Gun.jpg, Dart_Gun-LT.jpg, Dart_Gun-TR3026.jpg, Dart_Gun-3e.jpg, etc with the most up to date being the main undifferenced file as well as having a file name diferenced for the source.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC) <br />
:::To be honest, I rarely give it any thought. I generally leave it the way it was originally named, if it came from another online source or name it appropriately if I scanned it myself. If it conflicts with another already named pic, the page will tell you before uploading.<br />
:::The problem with a naming convention is that it adds another level of complexity to adminship, as it cannot be as easily solved as page names. Plus, I don't know of any Editors that will be policing for that. I agree, it would be very nice to have source included -in fact, I think it should be required- but it doesn't have to be in the name, as it can easily be found in the pic summary. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Question is more about Preference than Requirement. If the parenthetical number style is preferred then I could do that. Main thing is that I plan to raid all my books for images of RPG weapons and plan to name the files to fit the "Best Practices" here as I do so for easy uploading. I know of many weapons that are in at least 3 different Sources. Went A ...little... Overboard with having the page number in the file name, but other than that what best fits?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::I'd say whatever scheme works best for you. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Thaaaanks... As my fiancee would say if asked, I positively suck at making decisions :)--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 21:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::No problem. You actually pay me to make decisions (and I pay you back here by doing it for free). {{Emoticon| :) }} Personal note: I still have your SL 'book' (following two tours since you loaned it to me). Once I unpack it (again), I'll have a (free) offer for you to put it back in book form. More later. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Category Page Cludge?===<br />
To the coders of the bunch: some categories (such as the [[:Category:Characters|Characters]] one) don't display all of the sub-categories, due to some setting that limits the number per page. Can we force it to show all sub-categories on the mother cat's main page?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Unfortunately not. This is a problem with the wiki itself and would require rewriting some of the essential code. Very large wikis like [http://starwars.wikia.com starwars] solve the problem by not placing all individuals in the ''individual'' category but only in the related subdirectories. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 19:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Hmmm, yeah, I see the point. So, in order to get people to see all available categories -so that they use the proper categories- we'd have to categorize everyone not yet in a sub-category. Okay...thanks for the tip, Ebakunin. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Community 'Forum' Name===<br />
I think its time we had a page where quick questions & answers can be asked, that don't necessarily relate to editing or admin requests. Things like:<br />
*"What was the name of that one non-Mark that became Captain-General in the war against the Sarna Supremacy?" --[[UserDude]]<br />
*"Hey...working on the article for ''Masters and Minions.'' Anyone have the production code for it?" --[[KuritaFan]]<br />
*"So...anyone think LAMs as ground vehicles, like maybe support vehicles, would be cool? I have some killer ideas." --[[LadiesMan217]]<br />
The idea would really be to provide quick answers, not so much conversations (in spite of that subtle last one), which would be directed to the Sarna forums. We'd archive it every quarter or so. This would be something similar to the Research Desk on Wikipedia. The question is: what should it be called? Chatterweb is already taken...ideas?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Okay, due to lack of overall interest, and based on my forthcoming essay about the 'character' of the site (i.e., a portal for research at the University of Sarna), I'm going to call this 'forum' the Research Desk. Please find it on the top right of the [[Main Page]].--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Banned Vandal attempting to get a new account?===<br />
I think you have a banned vandal attempting to get a new account. But this wiki has no where shown to send the information, and edits don't seem to be leaving any trace that they have been successful. http://www.fixya.com/support/t2634796-blocked_from_editing_www_sarna_net {{unsigned|72.183.119.36}}<br />
:Thanks. Responded to them at Fixya. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 23:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===CCG Artist Randy Asplund===<br />
Just as a notice, in return for no objection to the use of his art on BTW, I said I'd provide a link back to Randy Asplund's website on the image pages and [[Randy Asplund]] article. I don't imagine any Editors will have an issue with this arrangement. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 05:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Custom 'Mechs in Regular Categories?===<br />
Would like to get a feeling for consensus here: should fanon units be listed under categories (I had presumed) reserved for canon units. For example, [[Gatling]] is added to the BattleMechs | Medium BattleMechs | 45 ton BattleMechs | Free World's League BattleMechs categories. To be honest, I'd shy away from that and lump them under the catchall category of [[:Category:BattleMechsCustom]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
:According to our [[Policy:Canon]], this wiki expressly tolerates custom/Fanon (fan-made non-canonical information) content under the premise that it is clearly marked as such. It think that, by extension, this requires Fanon articles be kept out of the categories.<br />
:Personally, I even feel strongly against but as you may know I am of the opinion that Fanon content is detrimental to the image of this wiki anyways. (I've been overruled on this issue and I can live with that. BTW still rocks.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
::As do you, Frabby. Thanks for the guidance. I'll fix this one now and hopefully the established templates for custom units will help prevent this categorization overlap. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===InfoBox template broken?===<br />
The infoboxes for 'Mechs and fiction (books, BattelCorps fiction) seem to be broken but there was no recent edit to the templates - anybody know what happened? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Nic upgraded the MediaWiki software to 1.15. Good, quick catch, Frabby. Okay, let's all try and identify any other unanticipated (negative) changes that came as a result today and I'll pass those on to Nic. Hopefully, it'll just need some php tweaks and not a rollback. Report those found on this [[BattleTechWiki:Administrators/List|list]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Looks like all infoboxes are broken; state units, weapons, customweapons, aerospace fighters, dropships, you name it. So it looks like the software update did something to the way templates work. [[User:Onisuzume|Onisuzume]] 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Strick-9===<br />
I screwed up again. I don't get or understand how to edit/create here and I messed up the custom<br />
weapons list and can't remove what I did. So, I hope it can be fixed. I'm going to have my son show me how to use this system so, I don't mess it up AGAIN. Sorry for the mess. [[User:Sethnlori|Strick-9]] 13:35, 13 June 2009 (PDT)Strick-9[[User:Sethnlori|Strick-9]] 13:35, 13 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
:No problem. You edited a discussion page and almost anything goes on these.<br />
:I guess, you want to create that PPC-article, so my advice is:<br />
:# Open the same page again via "edit" and copy the source-code for your article (to get the code for the chart).<br />
:# Insert the name of your article in the search-box to the left and "go". (Not standard method, but easiest way.)<br />
:# A page will show up, saying that no article with this title exists, providing a red link to your "PPC something". Click on the link and an edit-page will open.<br />
:# Insert your text and "save page". Voilà: new article.<br />
:In general: Do some training in the "sandbox" (link on the left), before approaching a major task like new articles. --[[User:Detlef|Detlef]] 13:55, 13 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
::Thank you for the help. When I started playing BattleTech there were no computer games so, I'm a generation behind most of you. LOL. By the way does anyone know if a supercharger and TSM can be used together? If so, what is the rules on that. Thanks for the help and info. --[[User:Sethnlori|Strick-9]] 14:31, 13 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
:::Detlef wrote some really good guidance there. I was tempted to correct the article's place myself, but you really did most of the hard work already in writing the article and if you follow his steps, you'll learn the whole process. Call for help if you need it, tho, ok? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:57, 13 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Notable Pilots===<br />
Hi there, I've been going through some of the mech profiles. They look like most of them are done. I was wondering if it cool for me to add notable pilots that are both published in past TROs (original 3025 example) and from the novels. Would this be acceptable? I would be listing page, book, etc. where these characters profiles are listed. I am uncertain however, how far it be allowed. Example: Pilot of a Archer from TRO Notable Piltos. That can't be put in word for word, but apprievated version what is written. Example 2: Is duable to list pilot such as Conner Rhys-Monroe, a antagonist character whom is Rifleman RFL-8D in novel Sword of Sedition & Fortress Republic. Like notable pilots, be short listing for this character. Would this be allowable? Thank you. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:24, 3 March 2009 (PST)<br />
:You can add articles for the pilots. In fact, it would be great if you did that. And please do add as many references as you can, and as precisely as you can. I have done so myself for two characters that were notable pilots in TRO3025 and re-appeared in [[Starterbook: Sword and Dragon]]. Check out [[Terry Ford]] and [[Melinda Carlyle]] for examples. In fact, I suggest you use these articles as blueprints for your character articles on people mentioned as "notable pilots".<br />
:I would not, on the other hand, add them as notable pilots in the entries of the respective 'Mechs, in accordance with our [[:Policy:Notability]]. The reason is that they are not actually notable, but virtual nobodies in most cases. Very few of these "notable" pilots have ever made an appearance elsewhere in Canon, and if we listed everybody who ever piloted a given 'Mech type in a canon source then the lists would be very, very long.<br />
::If you read [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Famous_Pilots|the conversation]] members of the Project BattleMechs team had concerning the addition of the "Notable Pilots" section to the BattleMech articles, you will find that adding the pilots from the TROs was specifically cited as something we did not want to happen unless they were otherwise notable. I would like to stress that one precondition (not the only one) for including a pilot as "notable" on the 'Mech article is that they have their own article on BTW, per that same discussion. While Connor, specifically, is probably notable enough, he needs to have an article written about him that asserts that first. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 16:51, 3 March 2009 (PST)<br />
<br />
===Uploading Self-Generated Images===<br />
Hi, I suggested generating Unit TOEs for the Military Commands project, and others suggested I put up an example to demonstrate what I mean. I now have a PNG file, but no idea of how to upload. Can anyone walk me through the procedure, please?<br />
[[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 16:11, 25 February 2009 (PST)<br />
:As you have since uploaded and used the Waco Rangers TOE I take it this request is done? If not, please drop me a note. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 06:42, 27 February 2009 (PST)<br />
:::Yes, it's done - thanks. [[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 09:42, 27 February 2009 (PST)<br />
<br />
===Weapons, Character Pages===<br />
I have two questions. First off, if a character in BattleTech is already in the [[List of BattleTech Characters|"BattleTech characters list"]], should redirect pages be made so people get pointed straight to that location? I was thinking you would just use the context indicator so it would go straight to that person, but I thought I'd ask because you may decide to give major characters (like Sun-Tzu Liao) their own articles.<br />
:I'd actually prefer we split up [[List of BattleTech Characters|"BattleTech characters list"]] and make pages for all of the characters in there. --[[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:14, 7 January 2007 (CST)<br />
::Agreed. Most people are going to go for specific names, or type them in directly. Apart from being neater, and circumventing various technical limitations (both server- and client-side), it'll reduce the amount of bandwidth used on outbound traffic. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:54, 27 January 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
Secondly, shouldn't the weapons articles have more information than just where the weapon is manufactured? Isn't just having only where its made kind of odd? I was wondering for two reasons: 1) starting to put summaries on '''ALL''' the weapons pages would make a huge difference, and I wasn't sure if doing that would be against the BTW beliefs on the layout of said weps-articles. 2) If someone who knew very little about BattleTech wanted to find out more, here would be a great start. However, if they try to understand how a PPC or Gauss Rifle works, they would ahve to look at 'Mechs articles to (hopefully) find out.<br />
:Yes, we do want to get more data for the weapons besides just their locations of manufacture. However, when I started this wiki I pre-generated lots of pages, including using all of the manufacturing data I had available. Since some of these weapons haven't been filled with the other stats and fluff yet, all that is in them is their manuf data. --[[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:14, 7 January 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
Also, you guys should mention in one of the 'good-formatting' sections that people making new articles should see if they are spelling the linked weapons correctly. Many of the weapons listed on the Wanted Page are because a lot of people didn't use hyphens. Just saying. --[[User:~Malithion~|~Malithion~]] 13:54, 7 January 2007 (CST)<br />
:I also agree with this, however, creating redirects for simple spelling differences is easy as well. We'll never get everyone agreeing on a spelling for all items, and new people won't know about a policy like that either. It's easier, in the end, to do catch-all redirects so people get to the pages they want. --[[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:14, 7 January 2007 (CST)<br />
:I believe that the names of the actual pages should be standardised, but there should still be redirects from common alterations (e.g., since [[SRM-6]] is the most prevalent 'version' so far, it would be the primary page and 'acceptable variations' would redirect to it). Ease-of-use, and a unified feel. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:54, 27 January 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
Also, now that we have a [[heat sink]] article, should we just redirect to that from [[double heat sink]]? I can't think of many differences between them that warrant two articles but, hey, that's just me.<br />
Additionally, I noticed that there ''is'' a weapons template already set up (like the BattleMech box). I was wondering if any of you guys might have orginal BT data on the weps, or if its the same as the video-games. 'Cuz that's all the data I have. --[[User:~Malithion~|~Malithion~]] 18:34, 7 January 2007 (CST)<br />
:Canon data (from the board game) is what is being used. The video games tend to vary a lot (especially if you start reporting what their statistics ''actually are'', instead of ''what they say they are''). As far as I'm concerned, I believe specific pages (e.g., '[[Medium Laser]]', '[[Large Laser]]', etc.) should exist, with either relevant text be transcluded or linked to from beefy articles on the 'overall' aspect of a given technology (e.g., '[[lasers]]'). Same thing with heatsinks, etc., etc. Nic and Revanche may have other ideas though. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:54, 27 January 2007 (CST)<br />
::No, I agree with you that the board game is the origination point for all data. Everything else can be referenced, but generally starting off from the article on the board game version of the item in question. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:15, 7 February 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
I was curious as to whether or not we would honor labnames on this wiki. It's just a minor edit, but I was looking through the Character pages and I noticed that [[Peri]] was under the "P" section. I recall the scientist caste of the Clans being a bit more daring about the use of surnames, and adopt what they call 'labnames', surnames taken from doctors throughout history. In '[[Freebirth]]', Twilight of the Clans Book Four, she has adopted the labname Watson. Just a simple question. Thanks for your time.<br />
[[User:Jacen Pryde|Jacen Pryde]] 20:10, 10 September 2008 (CDT)<br />
:Since they're not official, I would say "no," though it should be included in the article. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 21:31, 10 September 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===MechFormations===<br />
I thought about making a category called "MechFormations" that lists all brigades, regiments & battalions.<br/><br />
And with that in place I wanted to replace the brigade descriptions from the main military article of every house with a list of links to all the brigade articles of that house & also move the descriptions that some already have to the corresponding brigade articles.<br/><br />
And there again I wanted to add all regiments of that brigade again only with a link so that an article can be made for every regiment.<br/><br />
Problem is:<br/><br />
# Can a user create a category?<br />
# How do I make a template for a brigade info box & regiment info box? Those looks more than complicate to me especially with the help page for creating brigade & regiment articles and with a doc page for that template.<br />
# Furthermore what should be listed in those infoboxes? For brigades I thought of: brigade symbol, name, formed, status & parent formation. And for regiments: regiment symbol, name, nickname, formed, status & parent formation. Anything else?<br />
[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 11:36, 20 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
:I was actually thinking about this subject today, so let me give my thoughts. I was thinking of creating different categories for each faction, "AFFS Units", "AFFC Units", "DCMS Units", "Clan Jade Falcon Units", "MAF Units", and so on and so forth. I was considering breaking it down with different categories in the same way that [[:Category:BattleMechs by weight class|BattleMechs are broken down by tonnage]]. For instance, [[:Category:Regular Units]] could take you to [[:Category:CCAF Units]], which takes you to [[:Category:Victoria Commonality Ranger Units]]. Each category along the way would list all of the units therein (a la [[:Category:BattleMechs]], [[:Category:Heavy BattleMechs]], [[:Category:70 ton BattleMechs]]). I think it is still appropriate to leave the descriptions of the brigades that are present on the military organization articles there, but expand upon them in full articles (in the same way that ''[[Handbook: House Steiner]]'' gives some info on them, but ''[[Field Manual: Lyran Alliance]]'' gives them a more complete treatment).<br />
:#Yes, a user can create a category. It works the same way as an article.<br />
:#Use other infoboxes as a model (Perhaps [[Template:InfoBoxMercUnit]] would be a good one to base this off of) and use the "Show Preview" button often.<br />
:#All of your suggestions sound good, except that I'm not sure what you mean by "status". The only thing I can think of to add would be an optional line for "destruction". --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:22, 20 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
::Well "Status" should show what the state of the unit is, active, destroyed, disbanded, deserted etc..<br/><br />
::More Categories sound good but I don't see how much different it is to what we will see in the articles.<br/><br />
::Faction>Capellan Confederation>Capellan Confederation Armed Forces>Victoria Commonality Rangers>Kingston'S Rangers<br/><br />
::Category:Regular Units>Category:CCAF Units>Category:Victoria Commonality Ranger Units>Kingston's Rangers<br/><br />
::Of course those categories would be better then just on big with all formations. I just counted the regiments of the 20 Year Update and came out with 577 and that ist without Brigades and without the Clans. We could do it like the BattleMech category, one big with all of them und some sub categories that are more specific starting with what you have suggested "Category Regular Units". And maybe "Mercenary Units"? What else? --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:11, 21 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
:::Actually, the reason I suggested "Regular Units" was because "Units" sounds like it could encompass BattleMechs, vehicles, etc. as they are "units". "Military units" is too broad (although it sounds better to me now), while "House units" is too narrow. I suppose we could integrate Mercenary units to a broader category that includes House, Periphery, and Clan units; but I think that's too much sub-categorization.<br />
:::On another note, when we create sections for the brigades, in addition to having a link to the main article for the brigade, we can have a link to the appropriate category that lists all units within that brigade.<br />
:::I like the idea for "status" now that I understand it... instead of having a separate section for date or destruction, we could just put the appropriate date next the status. By George, I think we might have it! --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:30, 21 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
::::Yes "Military units" sounds good but your right it also sounds to broad, I would expect to see units like Death Commandos or maybe dropship/jumpship fleets under such category too. Maybe "Ground Units"... na, or "Army Units"... na, maybe... look at the main page with the point "Unit Categories" and all the sub-points, what about making in similar.<br />
::::*"Formation Categories"<br />
::::**[[House Formations]]<br />
::::**[[Periphery Formations]]<br />
::::**[[Clan Formations]](Unsure as they don't show a brigade system with related regiments, instead the use similar clusters in different Galaxys, so clan formations would need some extra attention)<br />
::::**[[Mercenary Formations]](That could just be the renamed "Mercenary Units" category)<br />
::::**[[Pirate Formations]](Similar to the "Mercenary Formations")<br />
::::The "House Formation" category shows subcategories like "AFFS Formations", "CAAF Formations" etc., those can show the related brigade/milita/academy articles and subcategories like subcategory "Davion Brigade of Guards", subcategory "Draconis March Militia" and subcategory "Academy & Training Formations" etc., and each of those subcategories could show their related regiments & battalions articles like "Davion Heavy Guards", "Addicks DMM" and "1st NAIS Cadet Cadre" etc..<br />
::::I think I wasn't clear enough about the brigade & regiment articles. What I want to do is to add links in the main military article to brigade/milita etc. articles. Then in these articles there should be some major points covered besides the data in the infobox. I thought about "History", "Officers", "Tactics" and "Composition" and under “Composition” I wanted to list & link all regiments/battalions that are or were part of that brigade/milita etc.. So all together you can go down the ladder till you are down to a regiment article.<br />
::::Now that I read my post again I wonder if we need those categories at all. Their structure is very similar to what the military & brigade level articles will host. So do we really need them?--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:06, 22 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
:::::Sure. Things need to be categorized, so we might as well put them in categories that make sense without being unwieldy. With the categories, we don't need to put a dozen links in brigade articles. We need only throw in a link to the category. Of course, that means its another click away, but I think its useful to avoid clutter in the articles themselves. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:24, 28 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
::::::I see that we now have also a link to the State Units on the main page or was it already there? Seems new to me. Anyway how about another for clan units? I think they are in many aspects far away from states and even further from mercenarys to justify that. BTW where do we put the units from the Bandit Kingdoms & Pirates, ComStar & WoB and Deep Periphery & the not-named-clan?--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 18:52, 22 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
:::::::You're right: it is relatively new. I put it there, since I felt there was a dearth of unit articles and wanted to jumpstart interest in it. However, I hadn't followed thru by reading this thread. I like your idea for a Clan units category (and will add it now). '''A''': And, I think you're also right about the need to represent the other 'factions.' I personally would consider units with Bandit Kingdoms as state ones (such as I do for the [[Brotherhood of Randis]], being a unit of the [[Fiefdom of Randis|Fiefdom]]. However, acknowledged stateless entities such as ComStar and WOB might need to be discussed. Both have held (or presently hold) planets, so I'd prefer to see them under state categories.''' B''': What about all of these being in more specific sub-categories? I cannot imagine all the Great House (plus assorted other lesser Houses) all having their units mixed up together in one broad category (Cat:State Units). It seems to me, that Cat:Marik Units should be a sub-category of Cat:State Units. Discussion? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:04, 23 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
::::::::Sub-categories? Absolutely YES! I was about to ask the same today. A Sub-category for every state in the Category:State Units would help to keep the overview and articles of the brigades(Lyran Guards, Davion Guards, etc.) could link to them directly so you can get a clue of what units are in a specific brigade. --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:17, 23 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
:::::::::Ooh, good idea. Cascading categories. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding the various levels of organization, but anyone can create categories, so please...feel free to start those examples. Any ideas, however, for the Main Page namimg scheme above? We have State, Clan & Merc. I don't necessaily want to create Pirates, since there are so few articles that would be built for those, so a category that would incorporate pirates and others would be best. Cat:Misc, maybe? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:37, 23 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
::::::::::Cat:Misc sounds good. Regarding ComStat & WoB I think they would fit here better than in the state category. When I think of state factions I only think of the 5 houses and minor states like Rasalhague, St. Ives, Andurien, Magistracy of Canopus, Outworlds Alliance and Taurian Concordat maybe also the Bandit kingdoms and the smaller Periphery states too but not Comstar & WoB, especially ComStar is present everywhere and much more an Organization then a state. So I think they would fit here best, maybe Chaos March & Arc-Royal Defense Cordon too?--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 11:11, 24 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
:::::::::::New Main Page cat created and added. BigDuke, I think you're probably a bit more qualified than myself for defining what goes where in this case. If you start the standard now with units in each category, then it'll be that much stronger for it. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 24 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===Years===<br />
I have decided I have no real purpose in life, and give the years a consistent format. What tag do I use if I am unsure if the data included is accurate?<br />
[[2016]] is my basic template idea {{unsigned|Moosegod|20:31, 19 August 2008}}<br />
:"<nowiki>{{Verify}}</nowiki>" would be the one I would use. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:06, 20 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===Clan Jade Falcon changes===<br />
Excuse me, I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but there seems to be no way to e-mail the admins of this site. I recently edited the Jade Falcon page, correcting some historical innacuracies and general anti-Jade Falcon bias which was present on the page, and I was messaged by the administrators that my posts were unhelpful and I was going to be charged with VANDALISM. I thought that this was a wiki in which everyone was free to contribute, not a "members-only" club in which outsiders are not tolerated. I am extremely upset by this discrimination, and will neither contribute nor endorse this discriminatory site.{{unsigned|66.18.240.88|13:40, 18 March 2008 }}<br />
<br />
:The information that was added was extremely biased towards Clan Jade Falcon, that was why it was removed and you warned that the information you added '''might''' be considered vandalism. The current article can certainly be improved, but "Kerensky, in his hubris, decided that to have his name associated with the word "wolf" would be better for his image, and sided with the '''haughty and unworthy''' Clan Wolf [my emphasis]" is not the way to fix it. Moreover, some information was incorrect, such as the fact that more members of the Clan that Khan Crichell were involved in the downfall of ilKhan Ulric Kerensky (saKhan Chistu trapped him, for Pete's sake). "Clan Jade Falcon was the FIRST clan to allow freebirth to compete for a bloodname" is also completely untrue, as that person was actually Khan Phelan Kell of Clan Wolf.<br />
:The above reasons are why the information you added was deleted, not because of a desire to be exclusive. The warning was given because these edits violated BattleTechWiki policy, and informed you which policy it violated so you could read about it and understand why your edits were reverted. I still encourage you to read [[Policy:Neutral point of view]] so that you can better understand the reasons behind my decision. If, after that, it is still unclear, then please ask and I, or any other admin, will be happy to help you to the best of our ability. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:44, 18 March 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===CCG Cards===<br />
I noticed that the mission cards from the CCG section have no text in the text box. The main text shows up fine when I go into edit mode, but not on the page itself. I was checking out the Death from Above card and saw it. Just thought I'd point it out. [[User:Haruspex|Haruspex]] 15:13, 8 February 2008 (CST)<br />
:Great catch! I fixed the template (it lacked the "Text" parameter), so all should be good now. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 08:01, 9 February 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Recent Spam===<br />
What can we do about this recent spam? It appears that bots are pre-pending articles with special keywords they will later search for so they know they can edit that page. Which probably won't work because we don't allow anonymous users to post external URLs. What do other wiki's do about this? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 22:18, 10 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
:While it's not something I wanted to do, how about banning all IP edits? I don't know how other places handle this, but I don't think asking people to register to edit is too much. We will miss a few here a there, I would imagine, but if it stops this vandalism, I'm all for it. We could also look at it as a temporary measure until we come up with something better. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 10:51, 16 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
::Better idea. How about changing the already-in-place captcha parameters to include all non-registered editors? [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 10:45, 18 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
::I'm opposed to this. Vandalism-by-bot will continue, with or without blocking anonymous edits. The only thing that blocking anonymous edits does is tend to cause problems; you get a flood of user accounts taking up space in the MySQL database -- making location of legitimate registered users more difficult (we are hoping we'll eventually get enough editors that [[Special:Listusers]] might eventually become a necessity, right?). Blocking anonymous edits also tends to scare off those who make once-off typo fixes. They may not contribute much, but sometimes they come back. I know that's how it was with me and Wikipedia. If I had to register an account just to fix a typo I'd never have bothered.<br />
::You'll also get the odd disgruntled user who'll make an account at BugMeNot to get around such mandatory registration, and you'll then be forced to fight a war against otherwise legitimate users. (Since there'll be no way to verify that HelpfulUser7 is always going to be the same person -- he may be a vandal one day and useful another.) Better to avoid that kettle of fish altogether, methinks. I don't particularly like your newer idea either. CAPTCHAs are seldom perfect and they are a burden on legitimate users. Considering that almost every legitimate user is registered though, it's a fine interim solution. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 23:56, 22 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
:::I agree with you in that I don't particularly like either of my suggestions, either (for much the same reasons), but I also don't see anybody else suggesting anything. I have no doubt that if there was a good, simple solution it would have already been implemented. I had meant for the CAPTCHA suggestion to be temporary, as I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that it was something that could be done fairly easily while a more permanent solution is sought. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:31, 23 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
::::There's an extension that allows for this. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmEdit ConfirmEdit]. Permanent solutions are, in my opinion, impossible. The various botnets responsible for this stupidity consist of numerous infected PCs, many with dynamic IP addresses. If there is a spate of vandalism from a specific IP address or range, we'll block it. Apart from that? The most that can be done is to minimise harm and remain vigilant. The scumbags responsible for these botnets aren't going to close-up shop any time soon. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:19, 24 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
:::::I guess it's just a little frustrating for those of us who are patrolling for it. So far, [[User:Kittle|Kittle]], [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]], and I have been doing it almost constantly and at the cost of other real work. The temp-bans seem to be having some kind of impact as I only needed to edit about 5 articles this time instead of the normal 10-20. I have found that we are missing some of the vandalism, though, as I occasionally find an article that's been recently vandalized and it has some remnant of a previous attack. I don't know that there's much more that we can do, but it does make the whole experience less than satisfying. [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]] 15:48, 25 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
::::::It definitely sucks, I agree. I'll try to remain on IM (check my [[User:Xoid|user page]] for communication avenues) so you can nudge me if you need an admin to ban someone/thing. I'm seriously considering asking Nic to bestow someone with SysOp status purely so it's possible to provide better ban hammer coverage over the day. I know Scaletail the best and would recommend him, but I've been out of the loop for too long and it'd be unfair to other editors to simply assume Scaletail is the best suited to the job. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 01:01, 26 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
:::::::With great power comes great responsibility. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:31, 27 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
::::::::Can articles be protected? Some articles on WP are frequent targets of vandalism (like when Stephen Colbert tells people to), so the page in question can be protected from edits by all but an admin (or whatever the WP equivalent is). Can we do the same here with some of the most frequent targets? [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:14, 21 November 2007 (CST)<br />
:::::::::Unfortunately, the articles hit seem too random to be able to protect any. I've found another extension, [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CommentSpammer CommentSpammer] that seems to address our very problem. However, it requires MediaWiki v1.12, which isn't officially released yet (we're on 1.11). I'd rather wait until v1.12 is officially released, then I'll add this extension.<br />
:::::::::I also agree with Xoid that we could use another SysOp -- Scaletail, I think you're a great fit, as you've contributed a ton to this wiki. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:08, 2 December 2007 (CST)<br />
:::::::::: After months of wasting time reverting these 'gibberish' edits from spammers/vandalizers (having personally reverted 300+ gibberish edits so far), I'm leaning towards enabling the CAPTCHA for all anonymous edits. I know this will cause legit anonymous users a small bit of hassle, but we're still not requiring them to register and it should stop all this vandalism. Any opposition? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 01:19, 27 December 2007 (CST)<br />
:::::::::::Not from me. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 07:06, 27 December 2007 (CST)<br />
::::::::::::Nor I. I would welcome it, honestly. It would actually allow us to get back to some real work. ;) [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]] 08:15, 27 December 2007 (CST)<br />
:::::::::::: I have made the change. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 10:02, 27 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Main Page Sidebar Problem===<br />
Is it just me or does the sidebar get pushed far down whenever the BTW icon or Home links are selected? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:15, 9 December 2007 (CST)<br />
:Just you. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 11:47, 9 December 2007 (CST)<br />
::Seriously? That sucks. I get it on IE at home and Netscape on my ship. I wonder what could be causing it. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:18, 9 December 2007 (CST)<br />
:::Gross, I see that too. I'll take a look. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 12:28, 9 December 2007 (CST)<br />
::::There was a missing &lt;/div&gt; on the mainpage -- seems like fixing it fixed the problem. Let me know if not. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 13:07, 9 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Uploading Program files===<br />
How can I upload program files for others to download? I've tried the "upload File" link, but is this only for images? Please Help :o)<br />
[[User:Clemmensen|Clemmensen]] 04:35, 20 August 2007 (CDT)<br />
: The [[Special:Upload | Upload File]] link is only for images. For other files, please email me (nic [at] nicj [dot] net) with what you want to share and I can upload it to the [http://www.sarna.net/files file archive]. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:08, 2 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
=== Drive-by deletes? ===<br />
There's been 4 articles in the last day that have had 2/3 of their article deleted by random IPs. Is this a form of vandalism? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 12:50, 12 April 2007 (CDT)<br />
:It certainly sounds like it could be. What were the pages? [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:26, 13 April 2007 (CDT)<br />
::This has obviously been happening a lot - I've reverted probably 20 pages in the past couple of weeks with this problem. It seems odd as it's not an adbot and there doesn't seem to be any real rationale beyond just being annoying. [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]]<br />
:::I haven't seen this recently -- very strange. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:08, 2 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Plageurism===<br />
On the [[Thanatos]] and [[Lao Hu]] entries I had to delete the text from the articles due to the fact they were directly plageurized from another source by their original author. [[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 13:28, 17 May 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===Category:People===<br />
I started added the characters to [[:Category:People]] because it is on the main page when I realized that there is also a [[:Category:PeopleFictional]]. Since I'm sure nobody wants two identical categories, which one should we use? My vote goes to People because it's shorter and easier to find. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 14:58, 25 March 2007 (CDT)<br />
:: I vote for People as well. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 11:40, 26 March 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===Wikilinks as non-case & Mercenaries category===<br />
Two things. First, is it possible to make wikilinks non-case sensitive, or do we have to set up redirects? So many things in BattleTech have an extra capitalized letter in the middle, it's often hard to get it right. Second, would it be possible to create a "merecenaries" category? That way all those merc units can have their own category, since they're really not factions all on their own. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 22:28, 26 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:Ugh...I know what you mean (regarding all of those midword capitalizations). I'm gonna leave the response for this one to [[user:Xoid|Xoid]].<br />
:As for a Mercenaries category, I think that's a great idea. Specifically, however, are you referring to the [[Main Page]], under the Factions bullet? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 10:10, 30 December 2006 (CST)<br />
::From what I've read? There's no practical way for MediaWiki to implement it without causing severe interoperability problems with foreign language versions, more processing, etc., etc., you can find specifics at [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Case_sensitivity meta's page on case sensitivity].<br />
::I will say this though: I prefer it this way. By making sure that [[SRM-6]], [[SRM 6]] and [[srm 6]] are all different? It allows me to hunt down style inconsistencies in articles and clean them up, making for a more unified feel to the BattleTech Wiki. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:39, 27 January 2007 (CST)<br />
:::Sorry about the delayed response. I had forgotten I put this here.... I requested a category before I opened up the section on the main page, but I would envision it as two different things, though I'm not sure if the redundancy is necessary. While I'm here, can I make a request for a "people" category. Since it is on the left-hand toolbar, it would make sense to have a category for it. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 12:07, 26 February 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Spam===<br />
:I just recently had to fix the Board Game page from a spammer, IP is 202.212.58.10 in case you want to block or take whatever action you need to. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 11:11, 6 November 2006 (CST)<br />
:: Thanks CJKeys. I think I'll try to implement a captcha system for new changes that include outside URLs like wikia.com does. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 15:32, 6 November 2006 (CST)<br />
:::Had to fix it the [[Board Game]] page again, the IP for the spammer this time was 200.31.148.46. I dont know if you can block IPs but I thought I would let you know it happened again. Thanks. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 00:24, 8 November 2006 (CST)<br />
::::Also, thanks, CJ. I blocked both IPs for 3 months. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 01:10, 8 November 2006 (CST)<br />
:::::This looks like a minor annoying problem right now, but I could see it getting worse. Should I spend time investigating captcha for external links in edits? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 21:42, 21 November 2006 (CST)<br />
::::::I had to look the term up, since its the second time you've suggested this. How would you envision it working? Would everytime someone made an edit, they'd have to translate the image? Or, would we limit wiki editing only to registered users, who had to pass this test to register? The latter would be preferable to me. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 00:17, 22 November 2006 (CST)<br />
:::::::Well I still want to allow anonymous edits. The captcha prompt would only occur if 1) The user was not logged in (not registered) AND 2) they posted an edit with an external link. This would avoid 90% of the 'referral spam' that spambots want. It wouldn't block vandalism, but we're only trying to curb spam-bots with captcha.<br />
::::::::I like it. It is not restrictive for 95% of any edits, as how many times will an unregistered user seek to post links? Is this something you think you can turn on? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 10:21, 22 November 2006 (CST)<br />
:::::::::There may even be a way to get around needing that. The nastiest stuff is usually the ''div style="display: none"'' and similar crap that adbots love to toss around. You can also try setting a spam blocking RegEx similar to the one Wikipedia uses. It's one of the settings that is heavily documented on either [http://meta.wikimedia.org Meta] or [http://www.mediawiki.org MediaWiki.org]. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 11:49, 22 November 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
I've added a captcha system for BTW to combat SPAM. It will be triggered under the following conditions: [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 18:39, 14 February 2007 (CST)<br />
# New account creation ''or''<br />
# Editing an article under '''all''' the following circumstances:<br />
::The article contains a ''new'' link to an ''external'' website<br />
::The user is not logged in<br />
::The external link is ''not'' to wikipedia.org or mediawiki.org<br />
<br />
I hope this will be agreeable and adequate. Logged in users will never see the captcha, nor will anonymous users see it unless they post an external link. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 18:39, 14 February 2007 (CST)<br />
:Thank you! It was starting to get bad in the last few days. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:21, 14 February 2007 (CST)<br />
::Bad? This was nothing. When you are reverting five adbots, all of which are active at the same time, while you're on your own, and all of them use a myriad of proxies '''and''' sign up under new usernames… these bots haven't even started the long road to being annoying… they're not even hiding their garbage with non-displaying &lt;div&gt;s. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 00:36, 17 February 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Copyright Infringement===<br />
Greetings. I have recently become involved in contributing to BattleTech through the Wikipedia end. I submitted one article over there, "[[Chaos March]]." I came over here, only to find that my article had been copied verbatim. By itself, this is fine, because I know Wikipedia articles are public-domain, however no credit was given on the part of the person who 'ported the article to MechWiki. I would appreciate it that, for all articles taken from Wikipedia, credit be given to the original author and/or a link be provided to the original article (as provided in Wikipedia's copyright, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights). Since the only article of mine in question I have found is "Chaos March," that is all I am concerned with, however, I am sure the other authors from Wikipedia would appreciate it if you gave them the same consideration. {{unsigned|4.234.144.246}}<br />
<br />
:Great. Just. Great. ''*sigh*''. Alright; damage control. Nic: can you tell me exactly which pages were auto-generated? I'll run kdiff against a list of all articles with your list of generated articles so we know which ones to exclude from our inquisitorial purge. Revanche: a list of all articles you've imported would be appreciated.<br />
:Note that I could go through the 'Mechs and see if I can find any parts that are copied verbatim, though for obvious reasons that would be a PWOT (I know everything I've submitted is my own work, Daniel's 'articles' are next to non-existent and its rather obvious from CJ's fractured English that he wrote his articles himself (no offense intended CJ)). From there we've got two options here; nuke the lot and start over, or get cracking on providing appropriate licensing information. For obvious reasons I'd prefer the latter, but if you're antsy about getting sued go for the former. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 13:13, 13 December 2006 (CST)<br />
::My apologies for not signing up and signing earlier. My bleary eyes couldn't find the "create an account," button, even though it's in the same place as Wikipedia's. Apologies are certainly accepted. Lord knows I've made mistakes in the past. I'm not going to sue, I was just upset at not being credited for my work. I think this project is a great idea that can contribute a lot to the BattleTech community. Moreover, I have trolled on sarna.net for around a decade, and I would do nothing that might harm it. I think I have somewhat of an idea of at least some pages that were 'ported over and, if you all don't mind, I'll assist in linking them back to Wikipedia. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 21:17, 13 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:::Sure, any assistance is appreciated. I wasn't worried about you per se, I'm worried about the 'we'll sue your pants off' type; we all know they exist and it's better to be safe than sorry. Once upon a time we ran into legal troubles at another wiki I work on. I do not want a repeat here. I hope that explains my somewhat panicked reaction. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 00:01, 14 December 2006 (CST)<br />
::::I'm assuming your reffering to the name change of a group on UD?--[[User:The General|The General]]<sup>[[User_talk:The_General|T]]</sup> 20:33, 14 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:::::Yup, that's the one. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 02:04, 15 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:::Scaletail, any assistance you could give us in this matter, such as pointing out articles that may be infringing would be much appreciated. We are dedicated to making this wiki legit, as well as not upsetting others who have contributed to BattleTech :) [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 13:35, 14 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:: I apologize, 4.234.144.246. I had not realized that article was copied verbatim.<br />
:: ''Most'' of the 3,000 pages here are autogenerated (Planets, etc). We can use DynamicPageList (DPL) to get articles not in categories we've autogenerated and or created (mech articles).. try [[BattleTechWiki:SuspectPages]]. We can use that page list to review articles to see if they've been copied. We should also setup a template to link back to Wikipedia for articles that have been copied to give credit. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:46, 13 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:::Okay, guys: things are well-in-hand already, as long as we have wikicitizens helping the whole community with the procedures already in place. First of all, efforts have already been initiated to deal with this via the <nowiki>{{wikipedia}}</nowiki> tag. As 'ported articles are rediscovered, they can be linked back there. Back then, when I did much of the importing, I didn't have actual admin priviledges to do so, so it had to be exactly as it was seen, a cut & paste from wiki. The intent was clear: a different audience was being addressed. Where Wikipedia reaches out with encyclopedic info for the world that 'knows nothing' and wants to be educated on a subject, [[BTW]] is a source for fans/players of BattleTech who would not necissarily beturning to Wikipedia for source information. I 'needed' to do something quickly to show the relevance of BTW to people dropping by to check it out and I was also trying to keep the BattleTech wikiers from being fragmented between two BT-centric wikis (the other being the [http://battletech.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page MechWikia]).<br />
:::Since then, I have alternated between using the import function granted to admins and/or stating that the article was imported in the initial summary line. There was no intent to claim ownership of the articles written, and that's the purpose of the <nowiki>{{wikipedia}}</nowiki> tag. (Point-in-fact, similar work is supposed to be pointing back to the same article over here from Wikipedia, by contribs over there.) Now, I'm not going to go back thru my contribs and hit each one up, as I'm close enough to calling a wikibreak as it is. However, as is true with every other article here, each is a work in progress and no one person will ever be able to claim "that's my article" if the wiki is successful (i.e. many editors). The [[Help:Contents|Help]] page (and [[Help:Tags]] specifically) is very clear one how things are done here at BTW and all someone has to do is paste that tag on a page as it is re-discovered, and they'll be able to instantly see who the primary contributors of the article's history are over there.<br />
:::No offense was intended nor expected, as wikipedia works under the same 'no-ownership' policy. I understand that Scaletail does feel pride in writing a well-crafted article, and my intent was not to claim writing ability (where none exists, frankly). The article, however, has served an important article ''here'' by adding legitimacy and important information for the player base. I'd reccommend Scaletail make some minor alteration to the BTW version of the article (while its still young) with a summary note as coming from a primary Wikipedia contributor of the article. And also, feel pride that it has transcended from being an introductory peice for non-BTers, to a base article for a dedicated source of BT information.<br />
:::I, myself, am pretty much done with importing articles (or even editing the ones here) from Wikipedia, as there are so projects that I'd rather work on and the core material is completed. However, as Wikipedia has plenty of more material over there that really needs to be over here, importing by the cross-decking community is not a done-deal. If someone wants to address a policy page to this subject, please feel free. I do want to state to Nic, however, we don't need to be apologizing for the importing of articles from Wkipedia. Its open-source material and we already are trying to avoid the whole copyright dodge ball, as it is. We don't need to make it any harder for the few of us currently building this site. An apology for improper attribution to Wikipedia as the source is understandable and is being addressed with the cross-deck tag project. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 11:50, 17 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:: Xoid, no offense taken. I was always a thespian, not a wordsmith and my grades in the fine arts (drama, chorus, etc.) vs English in high school would bear that out. As for my articles each of them are an original work. I will admit I have some articles that have sister articles on mechwikia but that is because I started there and when I came here I brought them with me. I woudl hope to hell I dont have to give myself credit for my own work just because it is in two places. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 06:06, 15 December 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
[[Category:BattleTechWiki|Administrators]]<br />
[[Category:Help|Administrators]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=BattleTechWiki:Masthead&diff=179390BattleTechWiki:Masthead2011-04-28T19:21:30Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Weapons infobox */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[BTW:A]]}}<br />
<br />
Post in the section '''Admin Help Requests''' to get proper attention to the issue/problem. Please be specific and sign your request (by adding <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> at the end).<br />
<br />
== Current Sarna.net Wiki Administrators ==<br />
* [[User:Nicjansma | NicJansma]] ([[User talk:Nicjansma|Talk]] to me) <br />
* [[User:Revanche|Revanche]] ([[User talk:Revanche|Talk]] at me)<br />
* [[User:Xoid|Xoid]] ([[User talk:Xoid|Talk]] to me) '''(non-active)'''<br />
* [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] ([[User talk:Scaletail|Talk]] to me)<br />
* [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|Talk]] to me)<br />
* [[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]] ([[User talk:Ebakunin|Talk]] to me)<br />
* [[User:Mbear|Mbear]] ([[User talk:Mbear|Talk]] to me)<br />
<br />
Auto-updated list found [[Special:Listusers/sysop|here]]<br />
<br />
==Admin Help Requests (Outstanding)==<br />
'''Make your request here (and sign with 4 tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>))'''<br />
<br />
===Weapons infobox===<br />
Has gone haywire. Since I don't know how the infobox code works I don't want to muck with it further. Take a look at [[Autocannon/10]] for example, or I guess pretty much any weapon page... -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 17:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:What does "gone haywire" mean? What should I be seeing on the Autocannon/10 page that isn't correct?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Hmm... Well, when I look at it right now the box has disappeared and has turned into a text only list at the top of the article, justified left. Now, I use one of the alternate themes when viewing the site, perhaps that has something to do with it? <pokepokepoke>... Sure enough, the issue is only occurring when I am using the "Modern" skin on my preferences page, the box looks fine when I use the Sarna skin. Hmm... -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::Mbear, I don't see what LRichardson reports, but other than the infobox, the page is bleached of color and the sidebar is occluded from under the site logo all the way to 'MechForce (Amiga)', with the exception of the search box. I'm using IE7 (at the moment) and 'Sarna' skin.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::I was the last one to edit the Weapons Info Box, and any mistakes i made would have shown up well before now (i checked)--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===PDF files not acceptable?===<br />
A while back I composed myself a PDF of a blank mapsheet. It is a vector graphics based file suitable for high resolution printing. I wanted to link to it on the mapsheets page I created but I cannot upload it. Rasterizing the image would make it huge as the file is referenced at 600dpi x 27" x 22", as a PDF it is a managable size. Any suggestions? -- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 04:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:A while ago we deliberately limited the file formats that could be uploaded. The wiki format is unsuitable as a file repository and (iirc) our Bureaucrat and site owner Nic said it generated too much traffic. We do have a download section on this site, and I would suggest you contact Nic Jansma ([[User:Nicjansma]]) and ask him to put your PDF there. (Admittedly, the download section is sort of a stepchild on this site and has not been upgraded for years - one of the many things on the to-do list... :) ). [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 05:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Makes sense. Thanks for the direction.-- [[User:LRichardson|LRichardson]] 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Quick-Strike Rules Article Request===<br />
Hello there. Since were getting a bunch of products for the ''Quick-Strike Rules'', i think we may need have a article dedicate it. Unit Cards are for use of the new version of Battleforce, but their intended for Quick-Strike. Is possible to find someone write it up? I'm not that savy writing up game system type articles. I can try, but they don't not always write up good articles on game rules as i would like. Would there be someone out there would could write this article? It seems becoming bigger thing since these rules and products are also linked to [[BattleForce]] as products like unit cards go -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Go ahead and try (aka, "'''[[Be Bold]]'''"). Even if the wording doesn't come out good, another editor may eventually clean it up. On big subjects, I personally prefer badly-worded content to no content at all (YMMV). However, that only applies to high-profile topics. Everybody contributing on BTW should generally try to write good articles so as not to tie up other editor's time for copyediting the sloppy work of others. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Cleanup Template===<br />
Hello Admins, can we make the [[Template:cleanup|Cleanup Template]] a little bit, (the words are in my head, but my english writing :()...i think he needs a new outfit ;), it looks very sterile and and, any ideas or response.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 02:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC) <br />
:Can you elaborate on what you feel is wrong with the template? Personally, I like short and concise wording and I think the template conveys exactly what it is meant to say in a sober, matter-of-fact way. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Suggestion:Transclusion===<br />
one thing that might be useful is mastering/implementing wiki transclusion (it scares me too much to try at this point, but its the only thing that appears to fit the bill)... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
main question is whither or not transclusion works here... if so, what things could be transcluded?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Mech variant Pages==== <br />
(Transcluding the "Overview" and/or "Battle History" Fluff from the Mechs Main Page) with the stats on the side being for the specific variant, This would have the advantage of transcluded Text being edited in one spot and the rest being page specific. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Best handled in [[Project_BattleMechs#Variant_Pages]]--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I see what you're saying, but I think the very concept of transclusion is baffling to the majority of users, so it would be difficult to /require/. I guess I'd have no problem with an expert back-adapting an article to transclude, but I wouldn't make it part of the 'how to start' templates we have for beginning editors (and I still use those templates, myself).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::i've been more looking at transclusion with an "ohh my, that looks easy to do but hard to learn" perspective.. ::bugging eyes::, wonder if it would be easy enought to put into transclusion specific weapons or mech templates. Is there any one here with experience?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] can do so rather easily, but he is more of a [[Colonial Marshal]] admin and isn't here too much. In the end, this project would have to be undertaken by someone who wants to work thru all affected 'Mechs and is willing to learn transclusion to do it. I've got the latter skills, but am too widely focused to deal only with 'Mechs. And, it sounds like some consensus on variant pages needs to be reached, before picking up that scale of a project, anyhow. I believe [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] is the acting project head of [[BTW:PBM]] at the moment; I recommend you try and pitch your concept to him over there. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Weapon Variant Pages====<br />
Transclusion would Also be useful in Weapons, granted, on the BattleTech Scale, an Autocannon/20 is an Autocannon/20... But I am planning to do/have done some manufacturer / brand specific subpages for the weapons that would transclude the Macro/BattleTech Fluff from the main page for the weapon, and have Manufacturer/Brand specific RPG Stats, Eventually planning to do page and book references for where the information comes from.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Naming of Weapons/Equipment Variant Pages===<br />
Which would be preferred for these? Currently i am doing "Manufacturer or Brand"/"Model" (with disambig style weapon type) so it is [[General Motors/Whirlwind (AC-5)]] for the Marauders weapon. but I wonder if it would be more (useful/in keeping with the nomenclature here) to do [[Autocannon/5/General Motors/Whirlwind]]--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:The problem with using "/"s is that the wiki interprets that to be a subpage. As it is now, the Whirlwind article is a subpage of General Motors, not Autocannon/5, which I assume to be your intention. Of course, there is also the problem that MediaWiki thinks "Autocannon/5" is a subpage of "Autocannon". --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::not really a problem... would be better if WikiMedia interpeted SRM-4 as a subpage for SRM as it does Autocannon/5 as a subpage of Autocannon - this would better fit BattleTech Nomenclature. the essence of my question was whither {Manufacturer/Brand (disambig)} would fit or if it was deemed better to do {Weapon Type/SubType/Manufacturer/Brand}. I like the {Manufacturer/Brand (disambig)} style because it can get away with doing the brand name or add the disambig for equipment type if necessary as opposed to using the larger name space required for the page to branch off the Autocannon/5 page (less typing is always better)--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 16:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Category: Dark Age Mechs===<br />
I've been looking at the [[:Category: Dark Age Mechs|category]] that currently exists with that name, because it always bugs me that it doesn't fit in with the naming conventions used for other BattleMech categories. In my mind, it should read '''Category:Dark Age BattleMechs''', but it isn't just BattleMechs, as IndustrialMechs are included in the category too. I'm thinking it should then be '''Category:Dark Age 'Mechs''' (with the apostrophe), but then it still seems like it is different than what the name ''suggests.'' Help me wrap my mind around this?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::(Using heavy duty scotch tape for wrapping of Rev's mind) Hi there. I have not been involved with the new Dark Age 'Mech. However, i've noticed mis-labelling of sorts. [[Carbine]] for instance resemble the [[ConstructionMech]], but its not same machine. I believe what defines a mech is dark age is something constructed after the During or after the Jihad. Were starting to see alot age old Succession War 'Mechs as well Clan Era machine show up. Xanthos for example is Age of War design, yet it was resurrected during the Jihad, but it appeared in MWDA game system first. How do you define such large era machine? I think best way to keep it simple. Since the at moment, Dark Age Era for Battletech starts immediately after the Jihad <3081>(which i don't agree it should.) Were going see alot of the old fan favorites end up in the Jihad. Dark Age mech used to only exist in its own time period. Original, Dark Age ment it priemer and was used in with MechWarrior click game or was something related to it, like characters. Were going have alot dublication with category if were not careful. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Admin To-Do List===<br />
[[Talk:3053|Locis']] comments got me thinking about how we've been handling policy creation. I know that some policies that need to be written have fallen through the cracks. I would like to suggest that admins update the [[BattleTechWiki:ToDo |To Do List]] with policies that need creating when a discussion reaches consensus with a link back to the talk page in question. I know that policy writing is a pain, but it needs to be done. I'm probably the most guilty party here, but I think if we can get better organized, it will make the process easier. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Agreed. I'll start considering needed policies, look around WP for inspiration. Would like to stress, though, that policies are the purview of all Editors, not just Admins. This isn't aimed at Scaletail, at all: every visitor here gets a voice on BTW, and staying silent implies endorsement of the consensus. Readers that haven't edited are just as responsible for the direction of the wiki as the most industrious Editors and Admins. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Okay, I've spent a lot of time reading various Wikipedia policies and found subject areas I think we should address. However, we've got a lot more narrow scope than WP and I'm fairly certain that these policies won't address all of our needs. All Editors (not just admins) are free to suggest ideas (and even to write policy). --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Blocking Spammers===<br />
I've noticed a recent trend where spammers are creating User pages in which to hawk their links. '''Administrators''', please block the IP before deleting the page, so that we can start to cut down on these site attacks.<br />
Steps:<br />
# On [[Special:RecentChanges]], click on '''Block''' first.<br />
# Select a term length (my default is infinite) from '''Expiry'''.<br />
# Select ''Spamming links to external sites'' in the '''Reason''' field.<br />
# Make sure ''Prevent account creation '' and ''Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IPs they try to edit from '' are checked.<br />
# Click the '''Block this user''' button<br />
# Go back to [[Special:RecentChanges]] and click on the User page.<br />
# Delete it with fervor.<br />
Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
: Hopefully the ReCaptcha plugin will help a bit with this. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Watchlist===<br />
Why does the option show all doesn't work? I can only see changes from the last 7 days but the option show all should show me changes from the last 30 days. --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:31, 11 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
:I'm not sure. Nic? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:06, 20 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
::The default "max days" is 7 -- but I've bumped this up to 30 days for you. I couldn't verify it was working properly -- please let me know if you still only see 7 days. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 17:40, 1 March 2009 (PST)<br />
:::Still strange, in my preferences I tried to set the "Days to show in recent changes:" higher then 7 and also set the "Maximum number of days to show in watchlist:" higher but anything higher then 7 will be set to 7 and when I use the "all" option on my watchlist I get about 10 days. --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 07:43, 3 March 2009 (PST)<br />
<br />
===Fan Fiction Category===<br />
I was checking out the fan fiction page, and it seems to have a lot of images in the fan fiction category. I would suggest making a sub category for fan made images. I created a Category:Fan Made Art which is a sub-category of Category:Fan Fiction. I also made a Template:Fanon Art page. Adding the <nowiki>{{Fanon Art}}</nowiki> tag to those images instead of <nowiki>{{Fanon}}</nowiki> will add the same red fanon tag at the top of the page, but add it the subcategory instead. --[[User:Seth|Seth]] 23:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:I agree with the idea solely based on the wish to remove the images from the main category. But I wouldn't want to differentiate the plethora of existing Fan Work beyond that. Also, suggest to rename the sub-cat "Fanmade Images". [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Admin Help Requests (Completed) ==<br />
''Please move help requests here after the request is answered, with the latest (according to last answer) sorted to the top of this section.'''<br />
:''Note: Requests pertaining to specific spambots/spam users/spam edits are not archived. Please simply delete such requests here after dealing with the problem. The same goes for other minor requests such as the move or deletion of a misnamed article page.''<br />
<br />
===Crybaby throwing a tantrum===<br />
Maybe I'm just being dense, but I can't get the front page display the reworked news section correctly for the life of me. Now I somehow messed up the front page (not too badly luckily). Help appreciated in getting the formatting back on track. :( [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 09:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like you accidentally deleted the table row that holds the Chatterweb stuff. I put it back and I think we're all good now.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::"Assistance Appreciated" (as in, Award 2nd ribbon given, plus Problem Solver award) :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 12:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Davion Brigade of Guards===<br />
Hy guys, i found a problem in the Davion Brigade section, i cant see the unit insignia images, is it a wiki problem, then the images are uploaded.Thanks--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 14:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
:? Looks fine to me - the insignia are all there where they belong. I guess there's been a connection problem on your end or something like that. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 18:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Help Request in labeling a non-canon image(s)===<br />
Howdy, someone uploaded a non-canon imagine of the [[:File:2750th.png|Terran Hegemony Map]]. There no label stating it is fan-made and not a product of canon source. Does anyone know what were suppose to do about this? I've not dealth with a direct png image before. Usually these things have page that gives direction of the imagine. Someone thought that image that was uploaded was canon. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 02:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
:OK. What you have to do is put in a link to the image like this: <nowiki>[[Image:2750th.png|Terran Hegemony Map]]</nowiki>. This will include the image on the page. From there, you can click the image and you'll be taken to the image's wiki page. Then you can add the tag you need.<br />
:In this case it looks like someone has beaten you to it.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::It was me, I stumbled onto the source of the image. I was able track the non-canon image from person whom uploaded them. I've labeled it non-canon long with bunch of others that were uploaded as well. I'm sorry for cause a fuss, but i hated to see Sarna.net rep possibly damaged. Making people think we have unorganized non-canon stuff looming around possing as canon material. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Update to DropShip and WarShip infoboxes===<br />
[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] and [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] made a request on [[User_talk:Mbear#DropShip_-_WarShip_etc...|my talk page]] to make these modifications:<br />
# Update the DropShip infobox to include an '''Escape Pod/Life Boat''' line like the WarShip infobox.<br />
# Update the DropShip infobox to include an '''AeroSpace Fighter capacity''' line.<br />
# Update the WarShip infobox to include an '''AeroSpace Fighter capacity''' line.<br />
I've taken care of the first request. It won't show up until an editor puts in the Escape Pod/Life Boat information so existing DropShip articles don't break.<br />
<br />
On #2 and #3, I pushed back a bit and suggested that we consider '''Small Craft capacity''' instead of '''AeroSpace Fighter capacity'''. Ships like the [[Nekohono'o]] class can carry 6 ASF + 9 Battle Taxis for example, but they can also swap out the taxis and carry 15 ASF if required.<br />
<br />
Any thoughts on this?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 13:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Since I haven't heard anything, I went ahead and implemented the new lines. They're in place now.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
::add both small craft and asf capacity... The masses of the bay are differnt--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Moratorium Periods===<br />
Hey guys - what's the easiest way to find out if the material from a particular work is fair game to be cited in an article? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 21:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Usually, the moratorium tag in the article about a given work will state when the moratorium expires. See [[Historical Turning Points: Galtor]] as an example - it says the moratorium on this publication expires after 1 April 2010. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]]<br />
:Hy falls Record Sheets: 3060 Unabridged under the moratorium phase or it is done.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 09:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
::According to http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=27_35_208&products_id=2417, the moratorium period expired. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Request for Article Review===<br />
I was wondering if I could get a review of my [[Battle of Mars]] article. I'm always interested in feedback. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Requesting template When?===<br />
Now that we are working on year pages and trying to improve date info it would be very useful to have Template:When to mark need of more info.<br />
See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:When Template:When]<br />
--[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Done. I would suggest adding some language to [[Policy:Year Pages]] about making sure that dates in articles are unambiguous. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== SturmFeur(Update)) ===<br />
The [[SturmFeur(update)]] is directly from 3039 which I now understand is copyrite infrengement. I do not want to claim ownership for someone elses work. How do I create this page and keep it cannon? <br />
<br />
Also the orginal article [[SturmFeur]] article for 3026 is completely different from the article in 3039. I'm not sure how to merge them. <br />
<br />
I have removed the content from the [[SturmFeur(update)]] page until we can get the copyrite resolved.<br />
--[[User:jherbert2|jherbert2]] 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)jherbert<br />
:Thanks for being so proactive on this, jherbert2. I commented on the [[SturmFeur(update)]]'s discussion page. Don't give up; its not easy, but each of the existing articles are labors of love. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Greetings===<br />
I wish the Admins and other user's a merry christmas and a habby new year.Lets roll on. [[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 08:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Subcategory for C3 equipped unit?===<br />
Hi, I haven't contributed much but I have found the site to be very useful so thanks for all your work. I've used BTW a lot lately as I have recently started to build up my mini collection and BTW has helped me with selecting ones I want to buy. I have a Tai Sho and since it has C3 Master capability, I would like to pick up some compatible Slave-equipped Mechs. I was wondering if it would be possible to set up a subcategory of units that have C3 equipment? That would be helpful in picking lances as well as buying minis. If I can help, please let me know. [[User:Maddog3025|Maddog3025]] 05:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:For all of the other Editors here, thanks for the appreciation. I'm not too heavily involved in the [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|BattleMech Project]] anymore, but its gratifying to hear that people are using our work in such an involved way ''and'' get feedback on it.<br />
:As for the Category, I think it is a great idea. If a category has a perceived need and it can be filled with more than a minimum number of articles, then it is, frankly, needed. So, don't feel like you need approval to build it, ok? Now, the issue will be in finding someone who has the interest in doing so, if you do not. As editorship on BTW is open to everyone, it is no one person's specific responsibility. My suggestion would be to look at Project:BattleMechs and find someone listed there who is active now and approach them. Or, if you let me know, I can start the category for you and show you how to tag one such article, so you can go in and find the others. (It'd be relatively easy, using C3 as a search term, I'd think.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::I've created some new categories to do this. I'll be adding them to the appropriate 'Mech pages in the future.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::Of course it would help if I had put the link in place: [[:Category:C3_Equipped_BattleMechs]]--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::All done.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::Wow, that was quick! Thank you Mbear. Revanche- you are welcome for the compliment. I've been using the site a lot and its been handy on many occasions. This format is so great as it allows you to sort things in so many ways. I looked through the vehicle list and noted some missing ones, so I'll be glad to create a few of those and you guys can tidy up my crude efforts. Have a good weekend, all! [[User:Maddog3025|Maddog3025]] 01:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::Hi again, I guess I won't quite let this thread die. I apologize if I leave this request in the wrong place. I have created the Bandit hovercraft and I am working on the Plainsman. I think I've done a bit better than my previous attempt on the Alacorn. However, if you have any tips for me to improve my work (and maybe reduce the amount of bugs you guys have to fix, please shoot me an email. Thanks again. ```` {{Unsigned|Maddog3025|11:37, 31 January 2010 }}<br />
::::::: I'll take a look. Look at the article history to see my changes as an idea on how to step in the right direction. Also, just a tip: its a nice idea to wikilink to articles you mention in your post, to make it easier to have people look at what you'd like, such as [[Plainsman]] and [[Bandit]]. Glad you're onboard. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC) <br />
<br />
=== Plagiarism ===<br />
I noticed that most of the content on the [[Free_Worlds_League/History]] page is taken directly from the [[20 Year Update]] section on the Free Worlds League. (The military ranks and history sections appear to be new.) I went ahead and put the Plagarism template on the relevant sections. (I'm not able to get to it right now.) --[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 01:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks, Mbear. It doesn't require fixing by the discovery, just tagging, such as you did. The [[BattleTechWiki:ToDo|To Do List]] will count and track such tags, for Editors seeking something to improve upon. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
=== Updated Weapon InfoBox Template ===<br />
''Not a help request, but I wanted you to see this.'' I put together a lot of information about Capital Weapons, which include an '''extreme''' range bracket. Since the current weapon infobox doesn't have the extreme range data field, and not all weapons have it, I created a new InfoBox that will include the extreme range bracket info if it's present. This will allow the Aerospace fighter ranges on the appropriate weapon page, without breaking the existing content.<br />
<br />
I named the sample infobox [[Template:InfoBoxWeaponMB]] so I wouldn't overwrite anything. You can see it in action at [[User:Mbear/Infoboxtest]]. If you like the update, it should be easy to copy to the existing template. Have a good one!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:Good job, man. Great addition. Feel free to replace the exisiting with that one. I can't see how consensus would not be in approval. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== MWDA Dossiers: How do I link to local copies? ===<br />
You may remember that [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] pointed to the MWDA dossiers on Warrenborn.com and I separated the multipage PDF files into a set of single page PDFs ([[User:Mbear/MWDADossiers|listed here]]). My question is how to update the reference links to point to these local resources. The [[Atlas_(BattleMech)|Atlas]] page uses a complete URL for the link, and I'm wondering if that's the best solution or if I should use a '''File''' or '''Image''' tag. Thanks! --[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:For this specific instance, I think linking to them as is done now works just fine. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 05:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Unfortunately, linking to them like that fails. For some reason, URL links don't need a pipe between the address and the link title, only a space. I've removed the piping from the Atlas examples. Oh, and I agree: I like linking to them as you have done, also. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 05:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::OK. I'll just use the standard link type <nowiki>[[URL Linktext]]</nowiki> Thanks!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::I think you mean <nowiki>[URL Linktext]</nowiki> (i.e., one open/close bracket each), but saying so, just in case.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::::Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I wasn't incorrect; I was testing you. {{Emoticon| ;) }} You passed! Congratulations! Go get yourself a cookie.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::"[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nom Nom, nom nom]." While it's the thought that counts, now I have to re-log into Sarna to replace my cookie. Thanks, anyway. {{Emoticon| ;) }}--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Question:Uploading Pictures===<br />
Currently Engaged in creating pages for infantry weapons, wondering how/where to upload images. Main issue beyond my ignorance is Whither or not to Upload the Weapon images which for the first batch would be Sourced from TR3026. I Make the Assumption that this would be OK since we have Mech Images Here. The Other Alternative is to use WikiMedia Commons images from Real World Weapons that resemble the TR3026 artwork. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Completed and moved--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Product scans are fine. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks, is there a Help/Procedure article for how to upload images? --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 15:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::DOH Never Mind, Found it in the Menu Bar on the Right under Tools... Now, how do you alter the name of an Image File? Wasn't Thinking when I uploaded the First 10 or so. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Just click 'move' at the top tab menu. It works that way for articles, too. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::"Move" does not appear to be available on the image page, the only tabs that i see are "File", "Discussion", "Edit", "History", "Unwatch".--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Move is actually only for Admins {{emoticon|:P}}. I can move it for you if you give me the exact name. The easiest thing to do, though, is to upload the image again with the correct name and place a delete request on the old image. It's what I do on a lot of other wikis. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Was wondering if that was the only way, will do. Thanks all.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Completed and moved--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Question:Naming Pictures===<br />
What is considered "Best Practices" when naming image files, IOW which File Name is Preferred for a filesourced from Page 123 of Technical Readout 3026 depicting a Dart Gun.<br />
*A: "Dart_Gun.jpg"<br />
*B: "Dart_Gun-TR3026"<br />
*C: "Dart_Gun_-_TR3026_p123.jpg"<br><br />
PRO for C is that the Book and page from the origin is included in the file name, the CON is that it is an aweful lot of typing.<br />
PRO for A is that it has less typing, CON is that does not allow for multiple pictures from different sources.<br />
PRO for B is that it allows for multiple named sources while also having a reduced name.<br />
--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I use "A", then use the description to list to rest of the information. Check out [[:File:Atlas_II.jpg]] for an example. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::the first 10 or 15 I uploaded used *C (search for TR3026), I would appreciate renaming (since both renaming and uploading again w/deletion of old would require Admin Intervention)... then i came to my senses... Question still remains for Duplicates w/Newer sources, such as weapons that had artwork published in each of [[MechWarrior,_First_Edition|MechWarrior: First Edition]], [[Technical Readout: 3026]], [[MechWarrior,_Second_Edition|MechWarrior: Second Edition]], [[MechWarrior Companion]], [[MechWarrior,_Third Edition|MechWarrior: Third Edition]] or [[Classic BattleTech RPG]], [[LosTech: The MechWarrior Equipment Guide]], and [[Classic BattleTech Companion]]. One thing that I am thinking of is weapon pages w/images of each iteration similar to what I saw on a page for a BattleMech. would it be <br />
*A: Dart_Gun.jpg, Dart_Gun(1).jpg, Dart_Gun(2).jpg<br />
*B: Dart_Gun.jpg, Dart_Gun-LT.jpg, Dart_Gun-TR3026.jpg, Dart_Gun-3e.jpg, etc with the most up to date being the main undifferenced file as well as having a file name diferenced for the source.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC) <br />
:::To be honest, I rarely give it any thought. I generally leave it the way it was originally named, if it came from another online source or name it appropriately if I scanned it myself. If it conflicts with another already named pic, the page will tell you before uploading.<br />
:::The problem with a naming convention is that it adds another level of complexity to adminship, as it cannot be as easily solved as page names. Plus, I don't know of any Editors that will be policing for that. I agree, it would be very nice to have source included -in fact, I think it should be required- but it doesn't have to be in the name, as it can easily be found in the pic summary. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Question is more about Preference than Requirement. If the parenthetical number style is preferred then I could do that. Main thing is that I plan to raid all my books for images of RPG weapons and plan to name the files to fit the "Best Practices" here as I do so for easy uploading. I know of many weapons that are in at least 3 different Sources. Went A ...little... Overboard with having the page number in the file name, but other than that what best fits?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::I'd say whatever scheme works best for you. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Thaaaanks... As my fiancee would say if asked, I positively suck at making decisions :)--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 21:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::No problem. You actually pay me to make decisions (and I pay you back here by doing it for free). {{Emoticon| :) }} Personal note: I still have your SL 'book' (following two tours since you loaned it to me). Once I unpack it (again), I'll have a (free) offer for you to put it back in book form. More later. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Category Page Cludge?===<br />
To the coders of the bunch: some categories (such as the [[:Category:Characters|Characters]] one) don't display all of the sub-categories, due to some setting that limits the number per page. Can we force it to show all sub-categories on the mother cat's main page?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Unfortunately not. This is a problem with the wiki itself and would require rewriting some of the essential code. Very large wikis like [http://starwars.wikia.com starwars] solve the problem by not placing all individuals in the ''individual'' category but only in the related subdirectories. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 19:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Hmmm, yeah, I see the point. So, in order to get people to see all available categories -so that they use the proper categories- we'd have to categorize everyone not yet in a sub-category. Okay...thanks for the tip, Ebakunin. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Community 'Forum' Name===<br />
I think its time we had a page where quick questions & answers can be asked, that don't necessarily relate to editing or admin requests. Things like:<br />
*"What was the name of that one non-Mark that became Captain-General in the war against the Sarna Supremacy?" --[[UserDude]]<br />
*"Hey...working on the article for ''Masters and Minions.'' Anyone have the production code for it?" --[[KuritaFan]]<br />
*"So...anyone think LAMs as ground vehicles, like maybe support vehicles, would be cool? I have some killer ideas." --[[LadiesMan217]]<br />
The idea would really be to provide quick answers, not so much conversations (in spite of that subtle last one), which would be directed to the Sarna forums. We'd archive it every quarter or so. This would be something similar to the Research Desk on Wikipedia. The question is: what should it be called? Chatterweb is already taken...ideas?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Okay, due to lack of overall interest, and based on my forthcoming essay about the 'character' of the site (i.e., a portal for research at the University of Sarna), I'm going to call this 'forum' the Research Desk. Please find it on the top right of the [[Main Page]].--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Banned Vandal attempting to get a new account?===<br />
I think you have a banned vandal attempting to get a new account. But this wiki has no where shown to send the information, and edits don't seem to be leaving any trace that they have been successful. http://www.fixya.com/support/t2634796-blocked_from_editing_www_sarna_net {{unsigned|72.183.119.36}}<br />
:Thanks. Responded to them at Fixya. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 23:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===CCG Artist Randy Asplund===<br />
Just as a notice, in return for no objection to the use of his art on BTW, I said I'd provide a link back to Randy Asplund's website on the image pages and [[Randy Asplund]] article. I don't imagine any Editors will have an issue with this arrangement. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 05:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Custom 'Mechs in Regular Categories?===<br />
Would like to get a feeling for consensus here: should fanon units be listed under categories (I had presumed) reserved for canon units. For example, [[Gatling]] is added to the BattleMechs | Medium BattleMechs | 45 ton BattleMechs | Free World's League BattleMechs categories. To be honest, I'd shy away from that and lump them under the catchall category of [[:Category:BattleMechsCustom]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
:According to our [[Policy:Canon]], this wiki expressly tolerates custom/Fanon (fan-made non-canonical information) content under the premise that it is clearly marked as such. It think that, by extension, this requires Fanon articles be kept out of the categories.<br />
:Personally, I even feel strongly against but as you may know I am of the opinion that Fanon content is detrimental to the image of this wiki anyways. (I've been overruled on this issue and I can live with that. BTW still rocks.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
::As do you, Frabby. Thanks for the guidance. I'll fix this one now and hopefully the established templates for custom units will help prevent this categorization overlap. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===InfoBox template broken?===<br />
The infoboxes for 'Mechs and fiction (books, BattelCorps fiction) seem to be broken but there was no recent edit to the templates - anybody know what happened? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 10:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Nic upgraded the MediaWiki software to 1.15. Good, quick catch, Frabby. Okay, let's all try and identify any other unanticipated (negative) changes that came as a result today and I'll pass those on to Nic. Hopefully, it'll just need some php tweaks and not a rollback. Report those found on this [[BattleTechWiki:Administrators/List|list]]. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Looks like all infoboxes are broken; state units, weapons, customweapons, aerospace fighters, dropships, you name it. So it looks like the software update did something to the way templates work. [[User:Onisuzume|Onisuzume]] 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Strick-9===<br />
I screwed up again. I don't get or understand how to edit/create here and I messed up the custom<br />
weapons list and can't remove what I did. So, I hope it can be fixed. I'm going to have my son show me how to use this system so, I don't mess it up AGAIN. Sorry for the mess. [[User:Sethnlori|Strick-9]] 13:35, 13 June 2009 (PDT)Strick-9[[User:Sethnlori|Strick-9]] 13:35, 13 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
:No problem. You edited a discussion page and almost anything goes on these.<br />
:I guess, you want to create that PPC-article, so my advice is:<br />
:# Open the same page again via "edit" and copy the source-code for your article (to get the code for the chart).<br />
:# Insert the name of your article in the search-box to the left and "go". (Not standard method, but easiest way.)<br />
:# A page will show up, saying that no article with this title exists, providing a red link to your "PPC something". Click on the link and an edit-page will open.<br />
:# Insert your text and "save page". Voilà: new article.<br />
:In general: Do some training in the "sandbox" (link on the left), before approaching a major task like new articles. --[[User:Detlef|Detlef]] 13:55, 13 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
::Thank you for the help. When I started playing BattleTech there were no computer games so, I'm a generation behind most of you. LOL. By the way does anyone know if a supercharger and TSM can be used together? If so, what is the rules on that. Thanks for the help and info. --[[User:Sethnlori|Strick-9]] 14:31, 13 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
:::Detlef wrote some really good guidance there. I was tempted to correct the article's place myself, but you really did most of the hard work already in writing the article and if you follow his steps, you'll learn the whole process. Call for help if you need it, tho, ok? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:57, 13 June 2009 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Notable Pilots===<br />
Hi there, I've been going through some of the mech profiles. They look like most of them are done. I was wondering if it cool for me to add notable pilots that are both published in past TROs (original 3025 example) and from the novels. Would this be acceptable? I would be listing page, book, etc. where these characters profiles are listed. I am uncertain however, how far it be allowed. Example: Pilot of a Archer from TRO Notable Piltos. That can't be put in word for word, but apprievated version what is written. Example 2: Is duable to list pilot such as Conner Rhys-Monroe, a antagonist character whom is Rifleman RFL-8D in novel Sword of Sedition & Fortress Republic. Like notable pilots, be short listing for this character. Would this be allowable? Thank you. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:24, 3 March 2009 (PST)<br />
:You can add articles for the pilots. In fact, it would be great if you did that. And please do add as many references as you can, and as precisely as you can. I have done so myself for two characters that were notable pilots in TRO3025 and re-appeared in [[Starterbook: Sword and Dragon]]. Check out [[Terry Ford]] and [[Melinda Carlyle]] for examples. In fact, I suggest you use these articles as blueprints for your character articles on people mentioned as "notable pilots".<br />
:I would not, on the other hand, add them as notable pilots in the entries of the respective 'Mechs, in accordance with our [[:Policy:Notability]]. The reason is that they are not actually notable, but virtual nobodies in most cases. Very few of these "notable" pilots have ever made an appearance elsewhere in Canon, and if we listed everybody who ever piloted a given 'Mech type in a canon source then the lists would be very, very long.<br />
::If you read [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Famous_Pilots|the conversation]] members of the Project BattleMechs team had concerning the addition of the "Notable Pilots" section to the BattleMech articles, you will find that adding the pilots from the TROs was specifically cited as something we did not want to happen unless they were otherwise notable. I would like to stress that one precondition (not the only one) for including a pilot as "notable" on the 'Mech article is that they have their own article on BTW, per that same discussion. While Connor, specifically, is probably notable enough, he needs to have an article written about him that asserts that first. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 16:51, 3 March 2009 (PST)<br />
<br />
===Uploading Self-Generated Images===<br />
Hi, I suggested generating Unit TOEs for the Military Commands project, and others suggested I put up an example to demonstrate what I mean. I now have a PNG file, but no idea of how to upload. Can anyone walk me through the procedure, please?<br />
[[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 16:11, 25 February 2009 (PST)<br />
:As you have since uploaded and used the Waco Rangers TOE I take it this request is done? If not, please drop me a note. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 06:42, 27 February 2009 (PST)<br />
:::Yes, it's done - thanks. [[User:Alkemita|Alkemita]] 09:42, 27 February 2009 (PST)<br />
<br />
===Weapons, Character Pages===<br />
I have two questions. First off, if a character in BattleTech is already in the [[List of BattleTech Characters|"BattleTech characters list"]], should redirect pages be made so people get pointed straight to that location? I was thinking you would just use the context indicator so it would go straight to that person, but I thought I'd ask because you may decide to give major characters (like Sun-Tzu Liao) their own articles.<br />
:I'd actually prefer we split up [[List of BattleTech Characters|"BattleTech characters list"]] and make pages for all of the characters in there. --[[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:14, 7 January 2007 (CST)<br />
::Agreed. Most people are going to go for specific names, or type them in directly. Apart from being neater, and circumventing various technical limitations (both server- and client-side), it'll reduce the amount of bandwidth used on outbound traffic. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:54, 27 January 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
Secondly, shouldn't the weapons articles have more information than just where the weapon is manufactured? Isn't just having only where its made kind of odd? I was wondering for two reasons: 1) starting to put summaries on '''ALL''' the weapons pages would make a huge difference, and I wasn't sure if doing that would be against the BTW beliefs on the layout of said weps-articles. 2) If someone who knew very little about BattleTech wanted to find out more, here would be a great start. However, if they try to understand how a PPC or Gauss Rifle works, they would ahve to look at 'Mechs articles to (hopefully) find out.<br />
:Yes, we do want to get more data for the weapons besides just their locations of manufacture. However, when I started this wiki I pre-generated lots of pages, including using all of the manufacturing data I had available. Since some of these weapons haven't been filled with the other stats and fluff yet, all that is in them is their manuf data. --[[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:14, 7 January 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
Also, you guys should mention in one of the 'good-formatting' sections that people making new articles should see if they are spelling the linked weapons correctly. Many of the weapons listed on the Wanted Page are because a lot of people didn't use hyphens. Just saying. --[[User:~Malithion~|~Malithion~]] 13:54, 7 January 2007 (CST)<br />
:I also agree with this, however, creating redirects for simple spelling differences is easy as well. We'll never get everyone agreeing on a spelling for all items, and new people won't know about a policy like that either. It's easier, in the end, to do catch-all redirects so people get to the pages they want. --[[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:14, 7 January 2007 (CST)<br />
:I believe that the names of the actual pages should be standardised, but there should still be redirects from common alterations (e.g., since [[SRM-6]] is the most prevalent 'version' so far, it would be the primary page and 'acceptable variations' would redirect to it). Ease-of-use, and a unified feel. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:54, 27 January 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
Also, now that we have a [[heat sink]] article, should we just redirect to that from [[double heat sink]]? I can't think of many differences between them that warrant two articles but, hey, that's just me.<br />
Additionally, I noticed that there ''is'' a weapons template already set up (like the BattleMech box). I was wondering if any of you guys might have orginal BT data on the weps, or if its the same as the video-games. 'Cuz that's all the data I have. --[[User:~Malithion~|~Malithion~]] 18:34, 7 January 2007 (CST)<br />
:Canon data (from the board game) is what is being used. The video games tend to vary a lot (especially if you start reporting what their statistics ''actually are'', instead of ''what they say they are''). As far as I'm concerned, I believe specific pages (e.g., '[[Medium Laser]]', '[[Large Laser]]', etc.) should exist, with either relevant text be transcluded or linked to from beefy articles on the 'overall' aspect of a given technology (e.g., '[[lasers]]'). Same thing with heatsinks, etc., etc. Nic and Revanche may have other ideas though. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:54, 27 January 2007 (CST)<br />
::No, I agree with you that the board game is the origination point for all data. Everything else can be referenced, but generally starting off from the article on the board game version of the item in question. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:15, 7 February 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
I was curious as to whether or not we would honor labnames on this wiki. It's just a minor edit, but I was looking through the Character pages and I noticed that [[Peri]] was under the "P" section. I recall the scientist caste of the Clans being a bit more daring about the use of surnames, and adopt what they call 'labnames', surnames taken from doctors throughout history. In '[[Freebirth]]', Twilight of the Clans Book Four, she has adopted the labname Watson. Just a simple question. Thanks for your time.<br />
[[User:Jacen Pryde|Jacen Pryde]] 20:10, 10 September 2008 (CDT)<br />
:Since they're not official, I would say "no," though it should be included in the article. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 21:31, 10 September 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===MechFormations===<br />
I thought about making a category called "MechFormations" that lists all brigades, regiments & battalions.<br/><br />
And with that in place I wanted to replace the brigade descriptions from the main military article of every house with a list of links to all the brigade articles of that house & also move the descriptions that some already have to the corresponding brigade articles.<br/><br />
And there again I wanted to add all regiments of that brigade again only with a link so that an article can be made for every regiment.<br/><br />
Problem is:<br/><br />
# Can a user create a category?<br />
# How do I make a template for a brigade info box & regiment info box? Those looks more than complicate to me especially with the help page for creating brigade & regiment articles and with a doc page for that template.<br />
# Furthermore what should be listed in those infoboxes? For brigades I thought of: brigade symbol, name, formed, status & parent formation. And for regiments: regiment symbol, name, nickname, formed, status & parent formation. Anything else?<br />
[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 11:36, 20 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
:I was actually thinking about this subject today, so let me give my thoughts. I was thinking of creating different categories for each faction, "AFFS Units", "AFFC Units", "DCMS Units", "Clan Jade Falcon Units", "MAF Units", and so on and so forth. I was considering breaking it down with different categories in the same way that [[:Category:BattleMechs by weight class|BattleMechs are broken down by tonnage]]. For instance, [[:Category:Regular Units]] could take you to [[:Category:CCAF Units]], which takes you to [[:Category:Victoria Commonality Ranger Units]]. Each category along the way would list all of the units therein (a la [[:Category:BattleMechs]], [[:Category:Heavy BattleMechs]], [[:Category:70 ton BattleMechs]]). I think it is still appropriate to leave the descriptions of the brigades that are present on the military organization articles there, but expand upon them in full articles (in the same way that ''[[Handbook: House Steiner]]'' gives some info on them, but ''[[Field Manual: Lyran Alliance]]'' gives them a more complete treatment).<br />
:#Yes, a user can create a category. It works the same way as an article.<br />
:#Use other infoboxes as a model (Perhaps [[Template:InfoBoxMercUnit]] would be a good one to base this off of) and use the "Show Preview" button often.<br />
:#All of your suggestions sound good, except that I'm not sure what you mean by "status". The only thing I can think of to add would be an optional line for "destruction". --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:22, 20 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
::Well "Status" should show what the state of the unit is, active, destroyed, disbanded, deserted etc..<br/><br />
::More Categories sound good but I don't see how much different it is to what we will see in the articles.<br/><br />
::Faction>Capellan Confederation>Capellan Confederation Armed Forces>Victoria Commonality Rangers>Kingston'S Rangers<br/><br />
::Category:Regular Units>Category:CCAF Units>Category:Victoria Commonality Ranger Units>Kingston's Rangers<br/><br />
::Of course those categories would be better then just on big with all formations. I just counted the regiments of the 20 Year Update and came out with 577 and that ist without Brigades and without the Clans. We could do it like the BattleMech category, one big with all of them und some sub categories that are more specific starting with what you have suggested "Category Regular Units". And maybe "Mercenary Units"? What else? --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:11, 21 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
:::Actually, the reason I suggested "Regular Units" was because "Units" sounds like it could encompass BattleMechs, vehicles, etc. as they are "units". "Military units" is too broad (although it sounds better to me now), while "House units" is too narrow. I suppose we could integrate Mercenary units to a broader category that includes House, Periphery, and Clan units; but I think that's too much sub-categorization.<br />
:::On another note, when we create sections for the brigades, in addition to having a link to the main article for the brigade, we can have a link to the appropriate category that lists all units within that brigade.<br />
:::I like the idea for "status" now that I understand it... instead of having a separate section for date or destruction, we could just put the appropriate date next the status. By George, I think we might have it! --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:30, 21 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
::::Yes "Military units" sounds good but your right it also sounds to broad, I would expect to see units like Death Commandos or maybe dropship/jumpship fleets under such category too. Maybe "Ground Units"... na, or "Army Units"... na, maybe... look at the main page with the point "Unit Categories" and all the sub-points, what about making in similar.<br />
::::*"Formation Categories"<br />
::::**[[House Formations]]<br />
::::**[[Periphery Formations]]<br />
::::**[[Clan Formations]](Unsure as they don't show a brigade system with related regiments, instead the use similar clusters in different Galaxys, so clan formations would need some extra attention)<br />
::::**[[Mercenary Formations]](That could just be the renamed "Mercenary Units" category)<br />
::::**[[Pirate Formations]](Similar to the "Mercenary Formations")<br />
::::The "House Formation" category shows subcategories like "AFFS Formations", "CAAF Formations" etc., those can show the related brigade/milita/academy articles and subcategories like subcategory "Davion Brigade of Guards", subcategory "Draconis March Militia" and subcategory "Academy & Training Formations" etc., and each of those subcategories could show their related regiments & battalions articles like "Davion Heavy Guards", "Addicks DMM" and "1st NAIS Cadet Cadre" etc..<br />
::::I think I wasn't clear enough about the brigade & regiment articles. What I want to do is to add links in the main military article to brigade/milita etc. articles. Then in these articles there should be some major points covered besides the data in the infobox. I thought about "History", "Officers", "Tactics" and "Composition" and under “Composition” I wanted to list & link all regiments/battalions that are or were part of that brigade/milita etc.. So all together you can go down the ladder till you are down to a regiment article.<br />
::::Now that I read my post again I wonder if we need those categories at all. Their structure is very similar to what the military & brigade level articles will host. So do we really need them?--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:06, 22 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
:::::Sure. Things need to be categorized, so we might as well put them in categories that make sense without being unwieldy. With the categories, we don't need to put a dozen links in brigade articles. We need only throw in a link to the category. Of course, that means its another click away, but I think its useful to avoid clutter in the articles themselves. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:24, 28 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
::::::I see that we now have also a link to the State Units on the main page or was it already there? Seems new to me. Anyway how about another for clan units? I think they are in many aspects far away from states and even further from mercenarys to justify that. BTW where do we put the units from the Bandit Kingdoms & Pirates, ComStar & WoB and Deep Periphery & the not-named-clan?--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 18:52, 22 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
:::::::You're right: it is relatively new. I put it there, since I felt there was a dearth of unit articles and wanted to jumpstart interest in it. However, I hadn't followed thru by reading this thread. I like your idea for a Clan units category (and will add it now). '''A''': And, I think you're also right about the need to represent the other 'factions.' I personally would consider units with Bandit Kingdoms as state ones (such as I do for the [[Brotherhood of Randis]], being a unit of the [[Fiefdom of Randis|Fiefdom]]. However, acknowledged stateless entities such as ComStar and WOB might need to be discussed. Both have held (or presently hold) planets, so I'd prefer to see them under state categories.''' B''': What about all of these being in more specific sub-categories? I cannot imagine all the Great House (plus assorted other lesser Houses) all having their units mixed up together in one broad category (Cat:State Units). It seems to me, that Cat:Marik Units should be a sub-category of Cat:State Units. Discussion? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:04, 23 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
::::::::Sub-categories? Absolutely YES! I was about to ask the same today. A Sub-category for every state in the Category:State Units would help to keep the overview and articles of the brigades(Lyran Guards, Davion Guards, etc.) could link to them directly so you can get a clue of what units are in a specific brigade. --[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 10:17, 23 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
:::::::::Ooh, good idea. Cascading categories. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding the various levels of organization, but anyone can create categories, so please...feel free to start those examples. Any ideas, however, for the Main Page namimg scheme above? We have State, Clan & Merc. I don't necessaily want to create Pirates, since there are so few articles that would be built for those, so a category that would incorporate pirates and others would be best. Cat:Misc, maybe? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:37, 23 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
::::::::::Cat:Misc sounds good. Regarding ComStat & WoB I think they would fit here better than in the state category. When I think of state factions I only think of the 5 houses and minor states like Rasalhague, St. Ives, Andurien, Magistracy of Canopus, Outworlds Alliance and Taurian Concordat maybe also the Bandit kingdoms and the smaller Periphery states too but not Comstar & WoB, especially ComStar is present everywhere and much more an Organization then a state. So I think they would fit here best, maybe Chaos March & Arc-Royal Defense Cordon too?--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 11:11, 24 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
:::::::::::New Main Page cat created and added. BigDuke, I think you're probably a bit more qualified than myself for defining what goes where in this case. If you start the standard now with units in each category, then it'll be that much stronger for it. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:52, 24 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===Years===<br />
I have decided I have no real purpose in life, and give the years a consistent format. What tag do I use if I am unsure if the data included is accurate?<br />
[[2016]] is my basic template idea {{unsigned|Moosegod|20:31, 19 August 2008}}<br />
:"<nowiki>{{Verify}}</nowiki>" would be the one I would use. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:06, 20 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===Clan Jade Falcon changes===<br />
Excuse me, I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but there seems to be no way to e-mail the admins of this site. I recently edited the Jade Falcon page, correcting some historical innacuracies and general anti-Jade Falcon bias which was present on the page, and I was messaged by the administrators that my posts were unhelpful and I was going to be charged with VANDALISM. I thought that this was a wiki in which everyone was free to contribute, not a "members-only" club in which outsiders are not tolerated. I am extremely upset by this discrimination, and will neither contribute nor endorse this discriminatory site.{{unsigned|66.18.240.88|13:40, 18 March 2008 }}<br />
<br />
:The information that was added was extremely biased towards Clan Jade Falcon, that was why it was removed and you warned that the information you added '''might''' be considered vandalism. The current article can certainly be improved, but "Kerensky, in his hubris, decided that to have his name associated with the word "wolf" would be better for his image, and sided with the '''haughty and unworthy''' Clan Wolf [my emphasis]" is not the way to fix it. Moreover, some information was incorrect, such as the fact that more members of the Clan that Khan Crichell were involved in the downfall of ilKhan Ulric Kerensky (saKhan Chistu trapped him, for Pete's sake). "Clan Jade Falcon was the FIRST clan to allow freebirth to compete for a bloodname" is also completely untrue, as that person was actually Khan Phelan Kell of Clan Wolf.<br />
:The above reasons are why the information you added was deleted, not because of a desire to be exclusive. The warning was given because these edits violated BattleTechWiki policy, and informed you which policy it violated so you could read about it and understand why your edits were reverted. I still encourage you to read [[Policy:Neutral point of view]] so that you can better understand the reasons behind my decision. If, after that, it is still unclear, then please ask and I, or any other admin, will be happy to help you to the best of our ability. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:44, 18 March 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===CCG Cards===<br />
I noticed that the mission cards from the CCG section have no text in the text box. The main text shows up fine when I go into edit mode, but not on the page itself. I was checking out the Death from Above card and saw it. Just thought I'd point it out. [[User:Haruspex|Haruspex]] 15:13, 8 February 2008 (CST)<br />
:Great catch! I fixed the template (it lacked the "Text" parameter), so all should be good now. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 08:01, 9 February 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Recent Spam===<br />
What can we do about this recent spam? It appears that bots are pre-pending articles with special keywords they will later search for so they know they can edit that page. Which probably won't work because we don't allow anonymous users to post external URLs. What do other wiki's do about this? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 22:18, 10 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
:While it's not something I wanted to do, how about banning all IP edits? I don't know how other places handle this, but I don't think asking people to register to edit is too much. We will miss a few here a there, I would imagine, but if it stops this vandalism, I'm all for it. We could also look at it as a temporary measure until we come up with something better. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 10:51, 16 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
::Better idea. How about changing the already-in-place captcha parameters to include all non-registered editors? [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 10:45, 18 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
::I'm opposed to this. Vandalism-by-bot will continue, with or without blocking anonymous edits. The only thing that blocking anonymous edits does is tend to cause problems; you get a flood of user accounts taking up space in the MySQL database -- making location of legitimate registered users more difficult (we are hoping we'll eventually get enough editors that [[Special:Listusers]] might eventually become a necessity, right?). Blocking anonymous edits also tends to scare off those who make once-off typo fixes. They may not contribute much, but sometimes they come back. I know that's how it was with me and Wikipedia. If I had to register an account just to fix a typo I'd never have bothered.<br />
::You'll also get the odd disgruntled user who'll make an account at BugMeNot to get around such mandatory registration, and you'll then be forced to fight a war against otherwise legitimate users. (Since there'll be no way to verify that HelpfulUser7 is always going to be the same person -- he may be a vandal one day and useful another.) Better to avoid that kettle of fish altogether, methinks. I don't particularly like your newer idea either. CAPTCHAs are seldom perfect and they are a burden on legitimate users. Considering that almost every legitimate user is registered though, it's a fine interim solution. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 23:56, 22 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
:::I agree with you in that I don't particularly like either of my suggestions, either (for much the same reasons), but I also don't see anybody else suggesting anything. I have no doubt that if there was a good, simple solution it would have already been implemented. I had meant for the CAPTCHA suggestion to be temporary, as I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that it was something that could be done fairly easily while a more permanent solution is sought. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:31, 23 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
::::There's an extension that allows for this. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmEdit ConfirmEdit]. Permanent solutions are, in my opinion, impossible. The various botnets responsible for this stupidity consist of numerous infected PCs, many with dynamic IP addresses. If there is a spate of vandalism from a specific IP address or range, we'll block it. Apart from that? The most that can be done is to minimise harm and remain vigilant. The scumbags responsible for these botnets aren't going to close-up shop any time soon. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:19, 24 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
:::::I guess it's just a little frustrating for those of us who are patrolling for it. So far, [[User:Kittle|Kittle]], [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]], and I have been doing it almost constantly and at the cost of other real work. The temp-bans seem to be having some kind of impact as I only needed to edit about 5 articles this time instead of the normal 10-20. I have found that we are missing some of the vandalism, though, as I occasionally find an article that's been recently vandalized and it has some remnant of a previous attack. I don't know that there's much more that we can do, but it does make the whole experience less than satisfying. [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]] 15:48, 25 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
::::::It definitely sucks, I agree. I'll try to remain on IM (check my [[User:Xoid|user page]] for communication avenues) so you can nudge me if you need an admin to ban someone/thing. I'm seriously considering asking Nic to bestow someone with SysOp status purely so it's possible to provide better ban hammer coverage over the day. I know Scaletail the best and would recommend him, but I've been out of the loop for too long and it'd be unfair to other editors to simply assume Scaletail is the best suited to the job. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 01:01, 26 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
:::::::With great power comes great responsibility. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:31, 27 October 2007 (CDT)<br />
::::::::Can articles be protected? Some articles on WP are frequent targets of vandalism (like when Stephen Colbert tells people to), so the page in question can be protected from edits by all but an admin (or whatever the WP equivalent is). Can we do the same here with some of the most frequent targets? [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:14, 21 November 2007 (CST)<br />
:::::::::Unfortunately, the articles hit seem too random to be able to protect any. I've found another extension, [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CommentSpammer CommentSpammer] that seems to address our very problem. However, it requires MediaWiki v1.12, which isn't officially released yet (we're on 1.11). I'd rather wait until v1.12 is officially released, then I'll add this extension.<br />
:::::::::I also agree with Xoid that we could use another SysOp -- Scaletail, I think you're a great fit, as you've contributed a ton to this wiki. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:08, 2 December 2007 (CST)<br />
:::::::::: After months of wasting time reverting these 'gibberish' edits from spammers/vandalizers (having personally reverted 300+ gibberish edits so far), I'm leaning towards enabling the CAPTCHA for all anonymous edits. I know this will cause legit anonymous users a small bit of hassle, but we're still not requiring them to register and it should stop all this vandalism. Any opposition? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 01:19, 27 December 2007 (CST)<br />
:::::::::::Not from me. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 07:06, 27 December 2007 (CST)<br />
::::::::::::Nor I. I would welcome it, honestly. It would actually allow us to get back to some real work. ;) [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]] 08:15, 27 December 2007 (CST)<br />
:::::::::::: I have made the change. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 10:02, 27 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Main Page Sidebar Problem===<br />
Is it just me or does the sidebar get pushed far down whenever the BTW icon or Home links are selected? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:15, 9 December 2007 (CST)<br />
:Just you. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 11:47, 9 December 2007 (CST)<br />
::Seriously? That sucks. I get it on IE at home and Netscape on my ship. I wonder what could be causing it. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:18, 9 December 2007 (CST)<br />
:::Gross, I see that too. I'll take a look. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 12:28, 9 December 2007 (CST)<br />
::::There was a missing &lt;/div&gt; on the mainpage -- seems like fixing it fixed the problem. Let me know if not. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 13:07, 9 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Uploading Program files===<br />
How can I upload program files for others to download? I've tried the "upload File" link, but is this only for images? Please Help :o)<br />
[[User:Clemmensen|Clemmensen]] 04:35, 20 August 2007 (CDT)<br />
: The [[Special:Upload | Upload File]] link is only for images. For other files, please email me (nic [at] nicj [dot] net) with what you want to share and I can upload it to the [http://www.sarna.net/files file archive]. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:08, 2 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
=== Drive-by deletes? ===<br />
There's been 4 articles in the last day that have had 2/3 of their article deleted by random IPs. Is this a form of vandalism? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 12:50, 12 April 2007 (CDT)<br />
:It certainly sounds like it could be. What were the pages? [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:26, 13 April 2007 (CDT)<br />
::This has obviously been happening a lot - I've reverted probably 20 pages in the past couple of weeks with this problem. It seems odd as it's not an adbot and there doesn't seem to be any real rationale beyond just being annoying. [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]]<br />
:::I haven't seen this recently -- very strange. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:08, 2 December 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Plageurism===<br />
On the [[Thanatos]] and [[Lao Hu]] entries I had to delete the text from the articles due to the fact they were directly plageurized from another source by their original author. [[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 13:28, 17 May 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===Category:People===<br />
I started added the characters to [[:Category:People]] because it is on the main page when I realized that there is also a [[:Category:PeopleFictional]]. Since I'm sure nobody wants two identical categories, which one should we use? My vote goes to People because it's shorter and easier to find. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 14:58, 25 March 2007 (CDT)<br />
:: I vote for People as well. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 11:40, 26 March 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
===Wikilinks as non-case & Mercenaries category===<br />
Two things. First, is it possible to make wikilinks non-case sensitive, or do we have to set up redirects? So many things in BattleTech have an extra capitalized letter in the middle, it's often hard to get it right. Second, would it be possible to create a "merecenaries" category? That way all those merc units can have their own category, since they're really not factions all on their own. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 22:28, 26 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:Ugh...I know what you mean (regarding all of those midword capitalizations). I'm gonna leave the response for this one to [[user:Xoid|Xoid]].<br />
:As for a Mercenaries category, I think that's a great idea. Specifically, however, are you referring to the [[Main Page]], under the Factions bullet? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 10:10, 30 December 2006 (CST)<br />
::From what I've read? There's no practical way for MediaWiki to implement it without causing severe interoperability problems with foreign language versions, more processing, etc., etc., you can find specifics at [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Case_sensitivity meta's page on case sensitivity].<br />
::I will say this though: I prefer it this way. By making sure that [[SRM-6]], [[SRM 6]] and [[srm 6]] are all different? It allows me to hunt down style inconsistencies in articles and clean them up, making for a more unified feel to the BattleTech Wiki. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 05:39, 27 January 2007 (CST)<br />
:::Sorry about the delayed response. I had forgotten I put this here.... I requested a category before I opened up the section on the main page, but I would envision it as two different things, though I'm not sure if the redundancy is necessary. While I'm here, can I make a request for a "people" category. Since it is on the left-hand toolbar, it would make sense to have a category for it. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 12:07, 26 February 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Spam===<br />
:I just recently had to fix the Board Game page from a spammer, IP is 202.212.58.10 in case you want to block or take whatever action you need to. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 11:11, 6 November 2006 (CST)<br />
:: Thanks CJKeys. I think I'll try to implement a captcha system for new changes that include outside URLs like wikia.com does. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 15:32, 6 November 2006 (CST)<br />
:::Had to fix it the [[Board Game]] page again, the IP for the spammer this time was 200.31.148.46. I dont know if you can block IPs but I thought I would let you know it happened again. Thanks. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 00:24, 8 November 2006 (CST)<br />
::::Also, thanks, CJ. I blocked both IPs for 3 months. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 01:10, 8 November 2006 (CST)<br />
:::::This looks like a minor annoying problem right now, but I could see it getting worse. Should I spend time investigating captcha for external links in edits? [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 21:42, 21 November 2006 (CST)<br />
::::::I had to look the term up, since its the second time you've suggested this. How would you envision it working? Would everytime someone made an edit, they'd have to translate the image? Or, would we limit wiki editing only to registered users, who had to pass this test to register? The latter would be preferable to me. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 00:17, 22 November 2006 (CST)<br />
:::::::Well I still want to allow anonymous edits. The captcha prompt would only occur if 1) The user was not logged in (not registered) AND 2) they posted an edit with an external link. This would avoid 90% of the 'referral spam' that spambots want. It wouldn't block vandalism, but we're only trying to curb spam-bots with captcha.<br />
::::::::I like it. It is not restrictive for 95% of any edits, as how many times will an unregistered user seek to post links? Is this something you think you can turn on? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 10:21, 22 November 2006 (CST)<br />
:::::::::There may even be a way to get around needing that. The nastiest stuff is usually the ''div style="display: none"'' and similar crap that adbots love to toss around. You can also try setting a spam blocking RegEx similar to the one Wikipedia uses. It's one of the settings that is heavily documented on either [http://meta.wikimedia.org Meta] or [http://www.mediawiki.org MediaWiki.org]. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 11:49, 22 November 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
I've added a captcha system for BTW to combat SPAM. It will be triggered under the following conditions: [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 18:39, 14 February 2007 (CST)<br />
# New account creation ''or''<br />
# Editing an article under '''all''' the following circumstances:<br />
::The article contains a ''new'' link to an ''external'' website<br />
::The user is not logged in<br />
::The external link is ''not'' to wikipedia.org or mediawiki.org<br />
<br />
I hope this will be agreeable and adequate. Logged in users will never see the captcha, nor will anonymous users see it unless they post an external link. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 18:39, 14 February 2007 (CST)<br />
:Thank you! It was starting to get bad in the last few days. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:21, 14 February 2007 (CST)<br />
::Bad? This was nothing. When you are reverting five adbots, all of which are active at the same time, while you're on your own, and all of them use a myriad of proxies '''and''' sign up under new usernames… these bots haven't even started the long road to being annoying… they're not even hiding their garbage with non-displaying &lt;div&gt;s. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 00:36, 17 February 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Copyright Infringement===<br />
Greetings. I have recently become involved in contributing to BattleTech through the Wikipedia end. I submitted one article over there, "[[Chaos March]]." I came over here, only to find that my article had been copied verbatim. By itself, this is fine, because I know Wikipedia articles are public-domain, however no credit was given on the part of the person who 'ported the article to MechWiki. I would appreciate it that, for all articles taken from Wikipedia, credit be given to the original author and/or a link be provided to the original article (as provided in Wikipedia's copyright, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights). Since the only article of mine in question I have found is "Chaos March," that is all I am concerned with, however, I am sure the other authors from Wikipedia would appreciate it if you gave them the same consideration. {{unsigned|4.234.144.246}}<br />
<br />
:Great. Just. Great. ''*sigh*''. Alright; damage control. Nic: can you tell me exactly which pages were auto-generated? I'll run kdiff against a list of all articles with your list of generated articles so we know which ones to exclude from our inquisitorial purge. Revanche: a list of all articles you've imported would be appreciated.<br />
:Note that I could go through the 'Mechs and see if I can find any parts that are copied verbatim, though for obvious reasons that would be a PWOT (I know everything I've submitted is my own work, Daniel's 'articles' are next to non-existent and its rather obvious from CJ's fractured English that he wrote his articles himself (no offense intended CJ)). From there we've got two options here; nuke the lot and start over, or get cracking on providing appropriate licensing information. For obvious reasons I'd prefer the latter, but if you're antsy about getting sued go for the former. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 13:13, 13 December 2006 (CST)<br />
::My apologies for not signing up and signing earlier. My bleary eyes couldn't find the "create an account," button, even though it's in the same place as Wikipedia's. Apologies are certainly accepted. Lord knows I've made mistakes in the past. I'm not going to sue, I was just upset at not being credited for my work. I think this project is a great idea that can contribute a lot to the BattleTech community. Moreover, I have trolled on sarna.net for around a decade, and I would do nothing that might harm it. I think I have somewhat of an idea of at least some pages that were 'ported over and, if you all don't mind, I'll assist in linking them back to Wikipedia. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 21:17, 13 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:::Sure, any assistance is appreciated. I wasn't worried about you per se, I'm worried about the 'we'll sue your pants off' type; we all know they exist and it's better to be safe than sorry. Once upon a time we ran into legal troubles at another wiki I work on. I do not want a repeat here. I hope that explains my somewhat panicked reaction. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 00:01, 14 December 2006 (CST)<br />
::::I'm assuming your reffering to the name change of a group on UD?--[[User:The General|The General]]<sup>[[User_talk:The_General|T]]</sup> 20:33, 14 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:::::Yup, that's the one. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 02:04, 15 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:::Scaletail, any assistance you could give us in this matter, such as pointing out articles that may be infringing would be much appreciated. We are dedicated to making this wiki legit, as well as not upsetting others who have contributed to BattleTech :) [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 13:35, 14 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:: I apologize, 4.234.144.246. I had not realized that article was copied verbatim.<br />
:: ''Most'' of the 3,000 pages here are autogenerated (Planets, etc). We can use DynamicPageList (DPL) to get articles not in categories we've autogenerated and or created (mech articles).. try [[BattleTechWiki:SuspectPages]]. We can use that page list to review articles to see if they've been copied. We should also setup a template to link back to Wikipedia for articles that have been copied to give credit. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 16:46, 13 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:::Okay, guys: things are well-in-hand already, as long as we have wikicitizens helping the whole community with the procedures already in place. First of all, efforts have already been initiated to deal with this via the <nowiki>{{wikipedia}}</nowiki> tag. As 'ported articles are rediscovered, they can be linked back there. Back then, when I did much of the importing, I didn't have actual admin priviledges to do so, so it had to be exactly as it was seen, a cut & paste from wiki. The intent was clear: a different audience was being addressed. Where Wikipedia reaches out with encyclopedic info for the world that 'knows nothing' and wants to be educated on a subject, [[BTW]] is a source for fans/players of BattleTech who would not necissarily beturning to Wikipedia for source information. I 'needed' to do something quickly to show the relevance of BTW to people dropping by to check it out and I was also trying to keep the BattleTech wikiers from being fragmented between two BT-centric wikis (the other being the [http://battletech.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page MechWikia]).<br />
:::Since then, I have alternated between using the import function granted to admins and/or stating that the article was imported in the initial summary line. There was no intent to claim ownership of the articles written, and that's the purpose of the <nowiki>{{wikipedia}}</nowiki> tag. (Point-in-fact, similar work is supposed to be pointing back to the same article over here from Wikipedia, by contribs over there.) Now, I'm not going to go back thru my contribs and hit each one up, as I'm close enough to calling a wikibreak as it is. However, as is true with every other article here, each is a work in progress and no one person will ever be able to claim "that's my article" if the wiki is successful (i.e. many editors). The [[Help:Contents|Help]] page (and [[Help:Tags]] specifically) is very clear one how things are done here at BTW and all someone has to do is paste that tag on a page as it is re-discovered, and they'll be able to instantly see who the primary contributors of the article's history are over there.<br />
:::No offense was intended nor expected, as wikipedia works under the same 'no-ownership' policy. I understand that Scaletail does feel pride in writing a well-crafted article, and my intent was not to claim writing ability (where none exists, frankly). The article, however, has served an important article ''here'' by adding legitimacy and important information for the player base. I'd reccommend Scaletail make some minor alteration to the BTW version of the article (while its still young) with a summary note as coming from a primary Wikipedia contributor of the article. And also, feel pride that it has transcended from being an introductory peice for non-BTers, to a base article for a dedicated source of BT information.<br />
:::I, myself, am pretty much done with importing articles (or even editing the ones here) from Wikipedia, as there are so projects that I'd rather work on and the core material is completed. However, as Wikipedia has plenty of more material over there that really needs to be over here, importing by the cross-decking community is not a done-deal. If someone wants to address a policy page to this subject, please feel free. I do want to state to Nic, however, we don't need to be apologizing for the importing of articles from Wkipedia. Its open-source material and we already are trying to avoid the whole copyright dodge ball, as it is. We don't need to make it any harder for the few of us currently building this site. An apology for improper attribution to Wikipedia as the source is understandable and is being addressed with the cross-deck tag project. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 11:50, 17 December 2006 (CST)<br />
:: Xoid, no offense taken. I was always a thespian, not a wordsmith and my grades in the fine arts (drama, chorus, etc.) vs English in high school would bear that out. As for my articles each of them are an original work. I will admit I have some articles that have sister articles on mechwikia but that is because I started there and when I came here I brought them with me. I woudl hope to hell I dont have to give myself credit for my own work just because it is in two places. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 06:06, 15 December 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
[[Category:BattleTechWiki|Administrators]]<br />
[[Category:Help|Administrators]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Help:CreateBARPGWeaponArticle&diff=179389Help:CreateBARPGWeaponArticle2011-04-28T19:17:51Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Otheruses|creating a Battle Armor mounted weapon article on the Role Playing Game Scale|creating a Battle Armor mounted weapon article on the BattleTech Scale|Help:CreateBAWeaponArticle}}{{Procedure}}<br />
''To quickly create a canon weapon article that matches the format in use with other canon weapons on the RPG Scale:''<br />
<br />
1. Open the [[Help:Creation| new article]]. <br />
<br />
2. Paste the following code into the edit field:<br />
<br />
<pre><nowiki><br />
{{InfoBoxRPGWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|250px]]<br />
| name = ???<br />
| Manufacturer = ???<br />
| Weapon Class = [[:Category:Support Weapon]]<br />
| Type = <br />
[[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
| Usage = <br />
[[:Category:Battle Armor|Battle Armor Mounted]] <br />
| Sub Name = ???<br />
| Tech Base = <br />
[[Clan]]<br />
[[Inner Sphere|IS]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#A - F|?]]<br />
| Age of War Availability = [[Availability Rating#A - F, X|?]]<br />
| Succession Wars Availability = [[Availability Rating#A - F, X|?]]<br />
| 3050+ Availability = [[Availability Rating#A - F, X|?]]<br />
| Legality = [[Legality Rating#A - F|?]]<br />
| Requirements = <br />
??? [[Slots]]<br />
| Year Avail = ??? <br />
| Skill = ???<br />
| Damage Type = <br />
[[Damage Type#Mele|M]]<br />
[[Damage Type#Ballistic|B]]<br />
[[Damage Type#Energy|E]]<br />
[[Damage Type#eXplosive|X]]<br />
| Armor Penetration Rating = <br />
??? [[Classic BattleTech RPG/Stats#Armor Penetration|AP]] OR <br />
??? [[A Time of War/Stats#Armor Penetration|AP]]<br />
| Damage Stat = <br />
??? [[Classic BattleTech RPG/Stats#d6|d6]] OR<br />
??? [[A Time of War/Stats#BD|BD]]<br />
| Shots Per Burst = ???<br />
| Burst Modifier = ???<br />
| Splash/Blast = ???<br />
| Incendiary = ???<br />
| Minimum-Meters = ???<br />
| Short-Meters = ???<br />
| Medium-Meters = ???<br />
| Long-Meters = ???<br />
| Extreme-Meters = ???<br />
| Heat = n/a<br />
| Damage = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = ???<br />
| Short Range = ???<br />
| Medium Range = ???<br />
| Long Range = ???<br />
| Extreme Range = ???<br />
| Mass (Unloaded) = ???<br />
| Shots Per Reload = ???<br />
| Shot Mass = ???<br />
| Reload Mass = ???<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = ???<br />
| Power Pack Name = ???<br />
| Power Pack Mass = ???<br />
| Power per Pack = ???<br />
| Power per Shot = ???<br />
| Power per Burst = ???<br />
| Shots per Pack = ???<br />
| Weapon Cost (unloaded) = ???<br />
| Reload Cost = ???<br />
| BV (1.0) = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) = ???<br />
| Notes = ???<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Models==<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
[[MechWarrior, Second Edition]]<br />
[[MechWarrior Companion]]<br />
[[MechWarrior, Third Edition]]<br />
[[LosTech, The WechWarrior Equipment Guide]]<br />
[[Classic BattleTech Companion]]<br />
[[Combat Equipment]]<br />
[[A Time of War]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Mele)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Ballistic)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Energy)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (eXplosive)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Extended Range Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Pulse Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Ballistic Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Recoiless Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:Missile Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
[[Category:In-Direct Fire Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG1e]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Mele)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Ballistic)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Energy)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (eXplosive)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Extended Range Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Pulse Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Ballistic Weapons (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Recoiless Weapons (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:Missile Weapons (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
[[Category:In-Direct Fire Weapons (Battle_Armor)/BTroop]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Mele)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Ballistic)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Energy)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (eXplosive)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Extended Range Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Pulse Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Ballistic Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Recoiless Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Missile Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:In-Direct Fire Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG2e]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Mele)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Ballistic)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Energy)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (eXplosive)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Extended Range Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Pulse Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Ballistic Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Recoiless Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Missile Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:In-Direct Fire Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG3e]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Mele)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Ballistic)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Energy)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (eXplosive)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Extended Range Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Pulse Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Ballistic Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Recoiless Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:Missile Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
[[Category:In-Direct Fire Weapons (Battle_Armor)/RPG4e]]<br />
</nowiki></pre><br />
<br />
3. Delete the fields from image line from the code ''if you do not have a corresponding picture''.<br />
<br />
4. Replace the '???' from the other lines with the correct data. Choose from the Pre-built options for things like Damage Type, etc.<br />
<br />
5. Fill in the four sections (Descriptions, Models, References, Bibliography) to the best of your capability.<br />
<br />
6. Click on the '''Show preview''' button and review your article for mistakes.<br />
<br />
7. Write a brief memo in the Summary field.<br />
<br />
8. Press the '''Save page''' button.<br />
<br />
9. Bask in the pride of your article, with our thanks.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Help|{{PAGENAME}}]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Help:CreateBAWeaponArticle&diff=179388Help:CreateBAWeaponArticle2011-04-28T19:16:15Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Otheruses|creating a Battle Armor mounted weapon article on the BattleTech Scale|creating a Battle Armor mounted weapon article on the Role Playing Game Scale|Help:CreateBARPGWeaponArticle}}{{Procedure}}<br />
''To quickly create a canon weapon article that matches the format in use with other canon weapons:''<br />
<br />
1. Open the [[Help:Creation| new article]]. <br />
<br />
2. Paste the following code into the edit field:<br />
<br />
<pre><nowiki><br />
{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|250px]]<br />
| name = {{PAGENAME}}<br />
| Type = <br />
[[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[:Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
| Tech Base = ???<br />
[[Clan]]<br />
[[Inner Sphere|IS]]<br />
| Year Availability = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Introduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Extinction = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Reintroduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Legality Rating = [[Legality Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Damage = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Short Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Medium Range =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Long Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BattleArmor Slots<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| RPG Shots Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Cost (per ton) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Cost (per reload) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Models==<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[Category:Battle_Armor_Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:Extended Range Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:Pulse Laser Weapons (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:Ballistic Weapons (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Machine Guns (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:Recoiless Weapons (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:Missile Weapons (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
[[Category:In-Direct Fire Weapons (Battle_Armor)]]<br />
</nowiki></pre><br />
<br />
3. Delete the fields from image line from the code ''if you do not have a corresponding picture'', also delete any categories and category links that do not apply.<br />
<br />
4. Replace the '???' from the other lines with the correct data.<br />
<br />
5. Fill in the three sections (Descriptions, Models, References) to the best of your capability.<br />
<br />
6. Click on the '''Show preview''' button and review your article for mistakes.<br />
<br />
7. Write a brief memo in the Summary field.<br />
<br />
8. Press the '''Save page''' button.<br />
<br />
9. Bask in the pride of your article, with our thanks.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Help|{{PAGENAME}}]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Help:CreateInfantryRPGWeaponArticle&diff=179385Help:CreateInfantryRPGWeaponArticle2011-04-28T19:13:57Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Otheruses|creating a Foot, Jump, or Motorized Infantry weapon article on the Role Playing Game Scale|creating a Foot, Jump, or Motorized Infantry weapon article on the BattleTech Scale|Help:CreateInfantryWeaponArticle}}{{Procedure}}<br />
''To quickly create a canon weapon article that matches the format in use with other canon weapons on the RPG Scale:''<br />
<br />
1. Open the [[Help:Creation| new article]]. <br />
<br />
2. Paste the following code into the edit field:<br />
<br />
<pre><nowiki><br />
{{InfoBoxRPGWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|250px]]<br />
| name = ???<br />
| Manufacturer = ???<br />
| Weapon Class = [[:Category:Support Weapon]]<br />
| Type = <br />
[[:Category:Light Weapon (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[:Category:Light Weapon (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[:Category:Light Weapon (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[:Category:Light Weapon (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapon (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapon (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapon (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapon (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
| Usage = <br />
[[:Category:Foot Infantry|Foot Infantry Portable]]<br />
[[:Category:Motorized Infantry|Motorized Infantry]]<br />
| Sub Name = ???<br />
| Tech Base = <br />
[[Clan]]<br />
[[Inner Sphere|IS]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#A - F|?]]<br />
| Age of War Availability = [[Availability Rating#A - F, X|?]]<br />
| Succession Wars Availability = [[Availability Rating#A - F, X|?]]<br />
| 3050+ Availability = [[Availability Rating#A - F, X|?]]<br />
| Legality = [[Legality Rating#A - F|?]]<br />
| Requirements = <br />
[[Crew]] ???[[Encumbering|E]]<br />
| Year Avail = ??? <br />
| Skill = ???<br />
| Damage Type = <br />
[[Damage Type#Mele|M]]<br />
[[Damage Type#Ballistic|B]]<br />
[[Damage Type#Energy|E]]<br />
[[Damage Type#eXplosive|X]]<br />
| Armor Penetration Rating = <br />
??? [[Classic BattleTech RPG/Stats#Armor Penetration|AP]] OR <br />
??? [[A Time of War/Stats#Armor Penetration|AP]]<br />
| Damage Stat = <br />
??? [[Classic BattleTech RPG/Stats#d6|d6]] OR<br />
??? [[A Time of War/Stats#BD|BD]]<br />
| Shots Per Burst = ???<br />
| Burst Modifier = ???<br />
| Splash/Blast = ???<br />
| Incendiary = ???<br />
| Minimum-Meters = ???<br />
| Short-Meters = ???<br />
| Medium-Meters = ???<br />
| Long-Meters = ???<br />
| Extreme-Meters = ???<br />
| Heat = n/a<br />
| Damage = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = ???<br />
| Short Range = ???<br />
| Medium Range = ???<br />
| Long Range = ???<br />
| Extreme Range = ???<br />
| Mass (Unloaded) = ???<br />
| Shots Per Reload = ???<br />
| Shot Mass = ???<br />
| Reload Mass = ???<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = ???<br />
| Power Pack Name = ???<br />
| Power Pack Mass = ???<br />
| Power per Pack = ???<br />
| Power per Shot = ???<br />
| Power per Burst = ???<br />
| Shots per Pack = ???<br />
| Weapon Cost (unloaded) = ???<br />
| Reload Cost = ???<br />
| BV (1.0) = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) = ???<br />
| Notes = ???<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Models==<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
[[MechWarrior, Second Edition]]<br />
[[MechWarrior Companion]]<br />
[[MechWarrior, Third Edition]]<br />
[[LosTech, The MechWarrior Equipment Guide]]<br />
[[Classic BattleTech Companion]]<br />
[[Combat Equipment]]<br />
[[A Time of War]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Category:Infantry Weapons/RPG2e]]<br />
[[Category:Category:Infantry Weapons/RPG3e]]<br />
[[Category:Category:Infantry Weapons/RPG4e]]<br />
</nowiki></pre><br />
<br />
3. Delete the fields from image line from the code ''if you do not have a corresponding picture''.<br />
<br />
4. Replace the '???' from the other lines with the correct data. Choose from the Pre-built options for things like Damage Type, etc.<br />
<br />
5. Fill in the four sections (Descriptions, Models, References, Bibliography) to the best of your capability.<br />
<br />
6. Click on the '''Show preview''' button and review your article for mistakes.<br />
<br />
7. Write a brief memo in the Summary field.<br />
<br />
8. Press the '''Save page''' button.<br />
<br />
9. Bask in the pride of your article, with our thanks.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Help|{{PAGENAME}}]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Help:CreateInfantryWeaponArticle&diff=179383Help:CreateInfantryWeaponArticle2011-04-28T19:12:09Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Otheruses|creating a Foot, Jump, or Motorized Infantry weapon article on the BattleTech Scale|creating a Foot, Jump, or Motorized Infantry weapon article on the Role Playing Game Scale|Help:CreateInfantryRPGWeaponArticle}}{{Procedure}}<br />
''To quickly create a canon weapon article that matches the format in use with other canon weapons:''<br />
<br />
1. Open the [[Help:Creation| new article]]. <br />
<br />
2. Paste the following code into the edit field:<br />
<br />
<pre><nowiki><br />
{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|250px]]<br />
| name = ???<br />
| Type = <br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[:Category:Medium Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
| Usage = <br />
[[:Category:Foot Infantry|Foot Infantry Portable]]<br />
[[:Category:Motorized Infantry|Motorized Infantry]]<br />
| Tech Base = ???<br />
[[Clan]]<br />
[[Inner Sphere|IS]]<br />
| Year Availability = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Introduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Extinction = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Reintroduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Legality Rating = [[Legality Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Heat = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Damage = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Short Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Medium Range =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Long Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Infantry Crew<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| RPG Shots Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Cost (per reload) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Models==<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Infantry Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Light Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[Category:Light Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[Category:Light Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[Category:Light Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
[[Category:Medium Weapons (Mele)|M]]<br />
[[Category:Medium Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
[[Category:Medium Weapons (Energy)|E]]<br />
[[Category:Medium Weapons (eXplosive)|X]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Laser Weapons (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Extended Range Laser Weapons (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Pulse Laser Weapons (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Ballistic Weapons (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Machine Guns (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Machine Guns (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Recoiless Weapons (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Missile Weapons (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:In-Direct Fire Weapons (Light Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Laser Weapons (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Extended Range Laser Weapons (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Pulse Laser Weapons (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Ballistic Weapons (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Machine Guns (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Machine Guns (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Recoiless Weapons (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Missile Weapons (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:In-Direct Fire Weapons (Medium Weapons)]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</nowiki></pre><br />
<br />
3. Delete the fields from image line from the code ''if you do not have a corresponding picture'', also delete any categories and category links that do not apply.<br />
<br />
4. Replace the '???' from the other lines with the correct data.<br />
<br />
5. Fill in the three sections (Descriptions, Models, References) to the best of your capability.<br />
<br />
6. Click on the '''Show preview''' button and review your article for mistakes.<br />
<br />
7. Write a brief memo in the Summary field.<br />
<br />
8. Press the '''Save page''' button.<br />
<br />
9. Bask in the pride of your article, with our thanks.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Help|{{PAGENAME}}]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Help:CreateWeaponArticle&diff=179381Help:CreateWeaponArticle2011-04-28T19:10:28Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Procedure}}<br />
''To quickly create a canon weapon article that matches the format in use with other canon weapons:''<br />
<br />
1. Open the [[Help:Creation| new article]]. <br />
<br />
2. Paste the following code into the edit field:<br />
<br />
<pre><nowiki><br />
{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|191px]]<br />
| name = ???<br />
| Type = ???<br />
| Tech Base = ???<br />
[[Inner Sphere]]<br />
[[Clan]]<br />
| Year Availability = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Introduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Extinction = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Reintroduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Legality Rating = [[Legality Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Heat = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Damage = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Short Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Medium Range =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Long Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Tons = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Critical Slots = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Infantry Crew<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Space Slots<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BattleArmor Slots<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Per Ton = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| RPG Shots Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Cost (per ton) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Cost (per reload) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Models==<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
[[Category:Weapons]]<br />
</nowiki></pre><br />
<br />
3. Delete the fields from image line from the code ''if you do not have a corresponding picture''.<br />
<br />
4. Replace the '???' from the other lines with the correct data.<br />
<br />
5. Fill in the three sections (Descriptions, Models, References) to the best of your capability.<br />
<br />
6. Click on the '''Show preview''' button and review your article for mistakes.<br />
<br />
7. Write a brief memo in the Summary field.<br />
<br />
8. Press the '''Save page''' button.<br />
<br />
9. Bask in the pride of your article, with our thanks.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Help|{{PAGENAME}}]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Template:InfoBoxWeapon&diff=179380Template:InfoBoxWeapon2011-04-28T19:07:59Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{| class='infobox'<br />
|-<br />
| colspan='2' | {{{image|}}}<br />
|- <br />
| colspan='2' class='infoboxname' | {{{name}}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan='2' class='infoboxheading' | '''Production information'''<br />
|- class='infoboxrow' <br />
| Type || {{{Type|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Tech Base || {{{Tech Base|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Availability|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Availability<br />
{{!}} {{{Year Availability|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Introduced|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Introduced<br />
{{!}} {{{Year Introduced|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Extinction|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Extinction<br />
{{!}} {{{Year Extinction|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Reintroduced |}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Reintroduced <br />
{{!}} {{{Year Reintroduced |}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Tech Rating|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Technology Rating<br />
{{!}} {{{Tech Rating|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Availability Rating|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Availability Rating<br />
{{!}} {{{Availability Rating|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Age of War–Star League|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Availability Ratings<br />
{{!}}{{{Age of War–Star League|}}}/{{{Succession Wars|}}}/{{{Clan Invasion – Present|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Legality Rating|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Legality Rating<br />
{{!}} {{{Legality Rating|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan='2' class='infoboxheading' | '''Technical specifications'''<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Heat|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Heat<br />
{{!}} {{{Heat|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Damage || {{{Damage|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Minimum Range || {{{Minimum Range|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Short Range || {{{Short Range|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Medium Range || {{{Medium Range|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Long Range || {{{Long Range|}}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Extreme Range|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Extreme Range<br />
{{!}} {{{Extreme Range|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Tons|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Tons<br />
{{!}} {{{Tons|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Mass|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Mass<br />
{{!}} {{{Mass|}}} kg<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Critical Slots|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Critical Slots<br />
{{!}} {{{Critical Slots|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Space Slots|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Space Slots<br />
{{!}} {{{Space Slots|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{BattleArmor Slots|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BattleArmor Slots<br />
{{!}} {{{BattleArmor Slots|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Infantry Crew|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Infantry Crew<br />
{{!}} {{{Infantry Crew|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo Per Ton|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo Per Ton<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo Per Ton|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{RPG Shots Per Reload|}}}|<br />
{{!}} RPG Shots Per Reload<br />
{{!}} {{{RPG Shots Per Reload|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Mass Per Reload|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Mass Per Reload<br />
{{!}} {{{Mass Per Reload|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Bursts Per Reload|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Bursts Per Reload<br />
{{!}} {{{Bursts Per Reload|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Cost (unloaded)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Cost (unloaded)<br />
{{!}} {{{Cost (unloaded)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Inf Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Inf Weapon Cost (unloaded)<br />
{{!}} {{{Inf Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{BA Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BA Weapon Cost (unloaded)<br />
{{!}} {{{BA Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo Cost (per ton)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo Cost (per ton)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo Cost (per ton)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo Cost (per Reload)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo Cost (per Reload)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo Cost (per Reload)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{BV (1.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BV (1.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{BV (1.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo BV (1.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo BV (1.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo BV (1.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{BV (2.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BV (2.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{BV (2.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo BV (2.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo BV (2.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo BV (2.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<noinclude><br />
==Usage instructions==<br />
Copy and paste the following code into the top of the article, filling the appropriate fields. This has duplicate Fields for the BattleTech Stats of three different classes of Weapons (Infantry Portable Weapons, BattleArmor Weapons, Combat Vehicle Weapons/BattleMech Weapons). Use The current [[Template:InfoBoxWeapon|template]] for a weapons' main page and [[Template:InfoBoxRPGWeapon]] for the Role Playing Game Sub-Pages. If a field is unknown, delete it. <br />
<br />
<pre><nowiki><br />
{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|191px]]<br />
| name = ???<br />
| Type = ???<br />
| Tech Base = ???<br />
[[Inner Sphere]]<br />
[[Clan]]<br />
| Year Availability = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Introduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Extinction = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Reintroduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Legality Rating = [[Legality Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Heat = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Damage = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Short Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Medium Range =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Long Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Tons = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Critical Slots = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Infantry Crew<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Space Slots<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BattleArmor Slots<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Per Ton = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| RPG Shots Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Cost (per ton) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Cost (per reload) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
}}<br />
</nowiki></pre><br />
<br />
</noinclude><br />
<br />
<noinclude><br />
[[Category:Templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]<br />
[[Category:Infobox templates|Weapon]]<br />
</noinclude></div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Template:InfoBoxWeapon&diff=179379Template:InfoBoxWeapon2011-04-28T19:07:18Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{| class='infobox'<br />
|-<br />
| colspan='2' | {{{image|}}}<br />
|- <br />
| colspan='2' class='infoboxname' | {{{name}}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan='2' class='infoboxheading' | '''Production information'''<br />
|- class='infoboxrow' <br />
| Type || {{{Type|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Tech Base || {{{Tech Base|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Availability|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Availability<br />
{{!}} {{{Year Availability|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Introduced|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Introduced<br />
{{!}} {{{Year Introduced|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Extinction|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Extinction<br />
{{!}} {{{Year Extinction|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Year Reintroduced |}}}|<br />
{{!}} Year Reintroduced <br />
{{!}} {{{Year Reintroduced |}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Tech Rating|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Technology Rating<br />
{{!}} {{{Tech Rating|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Availability Rating|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Availability Rating<br />
{{!}} {{{Availability Rating|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Age of War–Star League|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Availability Ratings<br />
{{!}}{{{Age of War–Star League|}}}/{{{Succession Wars|}}}/{{{Clan Invasion – Present|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Legality Rating|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Legality Rating<br />
{{!}} {{{Legality Rating|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
| colspan='2' class='infoboxheading' | '''Technical specifications'''<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Heat|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Heat<br />
{{!}} {{{Heat|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Damage || {{{Damage|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Minimum Range || {{{Minimum Range|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Short Range || {{{Short Range|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Medium Range || {{{Medium Range|}}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
| Long Range || {{{Long Range|}}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Extreme Range|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Extreme Range<br />
{{!}} {{{Extreme Range|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Tons|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Tons<br />
{{!}} {{{Tons|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Mass|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Mass<br />
{{!}} {{{Mass|}}} kg<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Critical Slots|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Critical Slots<br />
{{!}} {{{Critical Slots|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Space Slots|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Space Slots<br />
{{!}} {{{Space Slots|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{BattleArmor Slots|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BattleArmor Slots<br />
{{!}} {{{BattleArmor Slots|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Infantry Crew|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Infantry Crew<br />
{{!}} {{{Infantry Crew|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo Per Ton|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo Per Ton<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo Per Ton|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{RPG Shots Per Reload|}}}|<br />
{{!}} RPG Shots Per Reload<br />
{{!}} {{{RPG Shots Per Reload|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Mass Per Reload|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Mass Per Reload<br />
{{!}} {{{Mass Per Reload|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Bursts Per Reload|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Bursts Per Reload<br />
{{!}} {{{Bursts Per Reload|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Cost (unloaded)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Cost (unloaded)<br />
{{!}} {{{Cost (unloaded)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{Inf Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Inf Weapon Cost (unloaded)<br />
{{!}} {{{Inf Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class='infoboxrow'<br />
{{#if:{{{BA Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BA Weapon Cost (unloaded)<br />
{{!}} {{{BA Weapon Cost (unloaded)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo Cost (per ton)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo Cost (per ton)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo Cost (per ton)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo Cost (per Reload)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo Cost (per Reload)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo Cost (per Reload)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{BV (1.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BV (1.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{BV (1.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo BV (1.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo BV (1.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo BV (1.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{BV (2.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} BV (2.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{BV (2.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|- class="infoboxrow"<br />
{{#if:{{{Ammo BV (2.0)|}}}|<br />
{{!}} Ammo BV (2.0)<br />
{{!}} {{{Ammo BV (2.0)|}}}<br />
}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<noinclude><br />
==Usage instructions==<br />
Copy and paste the following code into the top of the article, filling the appropriate fields. This has duplicate Fields for the BattleTech Stats of three different classes of Weapons (Infantry Portable Weapons, BattleArmor Weapons, Combat Vehicle Weapons/BattleMech Weapons). Use The current [[Template:InfoBoxWeapon|template]] for a weapons' main page and [[Template:InfoBoxInfantryWeapon]] for the Role Playing Game Sub-Pages. If a field is unknown, delete it. <br />
<br />
<pre><nowiki><br />
{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|191px]]<br />
| name = ???<br />
| Type = ???<br />
| Tech Base = ???<br />
[[Inner Sphere]]<br />
[[Clan]]<br />
| Year Availability = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Introduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Extinction = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Reintroduced = <br />
Clan = [[YEAR]] [[Clan Faction|TLA]]<br />
IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#(Choose One A - F, X)|?]]<br />
| Legality Rating = [[Legality Rating#(Choose One A - F)|?]]<br />
| Heat = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Damage = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Short Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Medium Range =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Long Range = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Tons = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Critical Slots = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Infantry Crew<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Space Slots<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BattleArmor Slots<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Per Ton = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| RPG Shots Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Mass Per Reload = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Cost (per ton) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo Cost (per reload) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = <br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) =<br />
Clan = ???<br />
IS = ???<br />
}}<br />
</nowiki></pre><br />
<br />
</noinclude><br />
<br />
<noinclude><br />
[[Category:Templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]<br />
[[Category:Infobox templates|Weapon]]<br />
</noinclude></div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Auto-Pistol_(M%26G_Service)&diff=179104Auto-Pistol (M&G Service)2011-04-26T19:59:02Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Cleanup}}<br />
{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|250px]]<br />
| name = Mauser and Grey Service Automatic<br />
| Type = <br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
| Usage = <br />
[[:Category:Foot Infantry|Foot Infantry Portable]]<br />
| Tech Base = [[Inner Sphere]]<br />
| Year Availability = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Introduced = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#B|B]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Legality Rating = [[Legality Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Heat = N/A<br />
| Damage = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = 0<br />
| Short Range = 0.17<br />
| Medium Range = 0.33<br />
| Long Range = 0.5<br />
| Extreme Range = 0.75<br />
| Mass = 0.650<br />
| Infantry Crew = 1<br />
| RPG Shots Per Reload = 8<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = 8<br />
| Mass Per Reload = ???<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = 60<br />
| Ammo Cost (per reload) = 3<br />
| BV (1.0) = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) = ???<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
The Mauser & Gray Auto-Pistol is heavier when compared to similar designs; however this durability comes at the cost of ammunition capacity as it holds only eight rounds per magazine. This pistol is the standard issue sidearm used by the LAAF.<ref>Lostech p.32</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*[[A Time of War]]<br />
*[[Combat Equipment]]<br />
*[[TechManual]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Personal Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Light Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Pistols]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers]]<br />
[[Category:Burst-Fire Weapons]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Auto-Pistol_(M%26G_Service)&diff=179092Auto-Pistol (M&G Service)2011-04-26T19:45:12Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Cleanup}}<br />
{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|250px]]<br />
| name = Mauser and Grey Service Automatic<br />
| Type = <br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
| Usage = <br />
[[:Category:Foot Infantry|Foot Infantry Portable]]<br />
| Tech Base = [[Inner Sphere]]<br />
| Year Availability = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Introduced = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#B|B]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Legality Rating = [[Legality Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Heat = N/A<br />
| Damage = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = 0<br />
| Short Range = 0.17<br />
| Medium Range = 0.33<br />
| Long Range = 0.5<br />
| Extreme Range = 0.75<br />
| Mass = 0.650<br />
| Infantry Crew = 1<br />
| RPG Shots Per Reload = 8<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = 8<br />
| Mass Per Reload = ???<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = 6<br />
| Ammo Cost (per reload) = 3<br />
| BV (1.0) = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) = ???<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
The Mauser & Gray Auto-Pistol is heavier when compared to similar designs; however this durability comes at the cost of ammunition capacity as it holds only eight rounds per magazine. This pistol is the standard issue sidearm used by the LAAF.<ref>Lostech p.32</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*[[A Time of War]]<br />
*[[Combat Equipment]]<br />
*[[TechManual]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Personal Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Light Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Pistols]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers]]<br />
[[Category:Burst-Fire Weapons]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Auto-Pistol_(M%26G_Service)&diff=179091Auto-Pistol (M&G Service)2011-04-26T19:44:45Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Cleanup}}<br />
{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| image = [[Image:*.***|250px]]<br />
| name = Mauser and Grey Service Automatic<br />
| Type = <br />
[[:Category:Light Weapons (Ballistic)|B]]<br />
| Usage = <br />
[[:Category:Foot Infantry|Foot Infantry Portable]]<br />
| Tech Base = [[Inner Sphere]]<br />
| Year Availability = IS = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Year Introduced = [[YEAR]] [[IS Faction|TLA]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#B|B]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Legality Rating = [[Legality Rating#C|C]]<br />
| Heat = N/A<br />
| Damage = ???<br />
| Minimum Range = 0<br />
| Short Range = 0.17<br />
| Medium Range = 0.33<br />
| Long Range = 0.5<br />
| Extreme Range = 0.75<br />
| Mass = 0.650<br />
| Infantry Crew = 1<br />
| RPG Shots Per Reload = 8<br />
| Bursts Per Reload = 8<br />
| Mass Per Reload = ???<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = 6<br />
| Ammo Cost (per reload) = 3<br />
| BV (1.0) = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (1.0) = ???<br />
| BV (2.0) = ???<br />
| Ammo BV (2.0) = ???<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
The Mauser & Gray Auto-Pistol is heavier when compared to similar designs; however this durability comes at the cost of ammunition capacity as it holds only eight rounds per magazine. This pistol is the standard issue sidearm used by the LAAF.<ref>Lostech p.32</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*[[A Time of War]]<br />
*[[Combat Equipment]]<br />
*[[TechManual]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Personal Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Light Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Pistols]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers]]<br />
[[Category:Burst-Fire Weapons]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Auto-Pistol_(M%26G_Service)&diff=179086Talk:Auto-Pistol (M&G Service)2011-04-26T19:30:44Z<p>PerkinsC: Cleanup</p>
<hr />
<div>{{CleanupInfantryWeapons}}--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Specification==<br />
{| width=500 style="background: lightblue; text-align:center; border: 2px solid black;"<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''Item''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|AUTO-PISTOL (M&G SERVICE)<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''Technology''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|Medium technology<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''Age of War/Early Star League''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|Uncommon<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''Succession Wars''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|common<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''Clan Invasion''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|Uncommon<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''legality''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|Licensed<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''amor piercing/base damage''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|3B/4<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''range''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|5/20/40/85<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''shots''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|8<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''cost/reload''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|60/3<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''affilation''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|LA<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''mass''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|650 G<br />
|-<br />
| '''notes''':||—<ref>''Time of War'' p.255</ref><br />
|}<br />
<br />
Please transfer data from above table to infantry Weapon InfoBox on the page.</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Auto-Pistol_(M%26G_Service)&diff=179085Auto-Pistol (M&G Service)2011-04-26T19:29:09Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Specification */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Overview==<br />
The Mauser & Gray Auto-Pistol is heavier when compared to similar designs; however this durability comes at the cost of ammunition capacity as it holds only eight rounds per magazine. This pistol is the standard issue sidearm used by the LAAF.<ref>Lostech p.32</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*[[A Time of War]]<br />
*[[Combat Equipment]]<br />
*[[TechManual]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Personal Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Light Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Pistols]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers]]<br />
[[Category:Burst-Fire Weapons]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Auto-Pistol_(M%26G_Service)&diff=179084Talk:Auto-Pistol (M&G Service)2011-04-26T19:28:54Z<p>PerkinsC: Created page with '{{CleanupInfantryWeapons}}--~~~~'</p>
<hr />
<div>{{CleanupInfantryWeapons}}--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Auto-Pistol_(M%26G_Service)&diff=179083Auto-Pistol (M&G Service)2011-04-26T19:28:21Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Overview==<br />
The Mauser & Gray Auto-Pistol is heavier when compared to similar designs; however this durability comes at the cost of ammunition capacity as it holds only eight rounds per magazine. This pistol is the standard issue sidearm used by the LAAF.<ref>Lostech p.32</ref><br />
<br />
==Specification==<br />
{| width=500 style="background: lightblue; text-align:center; border: 2px solid black;"<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''Item''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|AUTO-PISTOL (M&G SERVICE)<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''Technology''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|Medium technology<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''Age of War/Early Star League''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|Uncommon<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''Succession Wars''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|common<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''Clan Invasion''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|Uncommon<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''legality''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|Licensed<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''amor piercing/base damage''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|3B/4<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''range''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|5/20/40/85<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''shots''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|8<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''cost/reload''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|60/3<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''affilation''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|LA<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|'''mass''':||style="border-bottom:1px solid black"|650 G<br />
|-<br />
| '''notes''':||—<ref>''Time of War'' p.255</ref><br />
|}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*[[A Time of War]]<br />
*[[Combat Equipment]]<br />
*[[TechManual]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Personal Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Light Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Pistols]]<br />
[[Category:Slug Throwers]]<br />
[[Category:Burst-Fire Weapons]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:PerkinsC&diff=179079User talk:PerkinsC2011-04-26T19:13:06Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Enhanced ER PPC */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Welcome==<br />
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 [[BattleTechWiki:New user log|new user log]]. If you want to continue to improve BattleMech articles, you may wish to sign up at [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|Project BattleMechs]]. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:16, 1 March 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Awards Section ==<br />
<br />
=== Awards board ===<br />
<br />
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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Weapons and equipment lists ===<br />
<br />
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: [[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapons by Faction ==<br />
<br />
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,57592.msg0.html#new --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Combat Vehicle Renaming==<br />
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. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapon category naming ==<br />
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? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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? --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapon Sub-Categories ==<br />
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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: 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...--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Factory Product Link /==<br />
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. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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|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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unknown ==<br />
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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Doneve, September 30<br />
<br />
:Could be that the Writers Flubbed it, that would not be the first time... wait, which disrepency?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Requests ==<br />
=== Advance & Experimental technology levels ===<br />
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#Custom_Configurations|Serpha Ranna]] from [[Jihad Turning Points: Sian|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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Definately Planning on it... the Rules Level System would be a thing to expand on... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Have done a page for each book to have the Rules levels ... Planning on doing a page for each of the Tech Level variants--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Armor Article Request ===<br />
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? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
::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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Citation needed ===<br />
<br />
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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Equipment Request ===<br />
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! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Man-Portable Weapons Question==<br />
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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Infantry Platoon Creation Rules==<br />
<br />
Have started working on [[User:PerkinsC/IPCRWorksheet|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 [[User:PerkinsC/WeaponsConversionWorkSheet|Infantry Platoon Creation Rules\Weapon Conversion Rules worksheet]].--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Cool. Glad someone finds the worksheet useful.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Now, if i could get it working... could be tonite, but probably will be tomarrow, after get home after work--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Note about Placeholder data in Work Sheet==<br />
<br />
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) <br />
:Huh?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFFFE0; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
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.</div>--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Ah. The light dawns.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Grin--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Infantry Images==<br />
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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks... good to know that there is a reason to buy the new books.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Request==<br />
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. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche<br />
: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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
==Templates==<br />
vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hy Cameron, i jump in, i want to add the InfoBoxWeapon template to [[User:Neuling]]s 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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks much--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Page formating==<br />
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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:not sure what you mean, there are supposed to be some blanks in the table--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==New Support Weapon Article==<br />
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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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.<br />
<br />
== Enhanced ER PPC ==<br />
<br />
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? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 00:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Wait - so every version would get its own page??? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: 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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Production and Availability Informaiton ==<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: 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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Cameron - Respectfully - I differentiate between "Technical Specifications" and "Production information". Would you at least agree that "Technical Specifications" should be listed first? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 23:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::"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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Creature Infobox==<br />
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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:PerkinsC&diff=179078User talk:PerkinsC2011-04-26T19:12:33Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Enhanced ER PPC */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Welcome==<br />
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 [[BattleTechWiki:New user log|new user log]]. If you want to continue to improve BattleMech articles, you may wish to sign up at [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|Project BattleMechs]]. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:16, 1 March 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Awards Section ==<br />
<br />
=== Awards board ===<br />
<br />
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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Weapons and equipment lists ===<br />
<br />
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: [[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapons by Faction ==<br />
<br />
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,57592.msg0.html#new --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Combat Vehicle Renaming==<br />
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. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapon category naming ==<br />
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? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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? --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapon Sub-Categories ==<br />
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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: 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...--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Factory Product Link /==<br />
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. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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|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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unknown ==<br />
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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Doneve, September 30<br />
<br />
:Could be that the Writers Flubbed it, that would not be the first time... wait, which disrepency?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Requests ==<br />
=== Advance & Experimental technology levels ===<br />
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#Custom_Configurations|Serpha Ranna]] from [[Jihad Turning Points: Sian|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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Definately Planning on it... the Rules Level System would be a thing to expand on... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Have done a page for each book to have the Rules levels ... Planning on doing a page for each of the Tech Level variants--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Armor Article Request ===<br />
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? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
::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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Citation needed ===<br />
<br />
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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Equipment Request ===<br />
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! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Man-Portable Weapons Question==<br />
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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Infantry Platoon Creation Rules==<br />
<br />
Have started working on [[User:PerkinsC/IPCRWorksheet|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 [[User:PerkinsC/WeaponsConversionWorkSheet|Infantry Platoon Creation Rules\Weapon Conversion Rules worksheet]].--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Cool. Glad someone finds the worksheet useful.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Now, if i could get it working... could be tonite, but probably will be tomarrow, after get home after work--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Note about Placeholder data in Work Sheet==<br />
<br />
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) <br />
:Huh?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFFFE0; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
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.</div>--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Ah. The light dawns.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Grin--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Infantry Images==<br />
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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks... good to know that there is a reason to buy the new books.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Request==<br />
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. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche<br />
: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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
==Templates==<br />
vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hy Cameron, i jump in, i want to add the InfoBoxWeapon template to [[User:Neuling]]s 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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks much--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Page formating==<br />
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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:not sure what you mean, there are supposed to be some blanks in the table--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==New Support Weapon Article==<br />
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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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.<br />
<br />
== Enhanced ER PPC ==<br />
<br />
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? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 00:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Wait - so every version would get its own page??? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: 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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Production and Availability Informaiton ==<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: 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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Cameron - Respectfully - I differentiate between "Technical Specifications" and "Production information". Would you at least agree that "Technical Specifications" should be listed first? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 23:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::"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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Creature Infobox==<br />
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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:PerkinsC&diff=179077User talk:PerkinsC2011-04-26T19:11:43Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Production and Availability Informaiton */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Welcome==<br />
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 [[BattleTechWiki:New user log|new user log]]. If you want to continue to improve BattleMech articles, you may wish to sign up at [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|Project BattleMechs]]. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:16, 1 March 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Awards Section ==<br />
<br />
=== Awards board ===<br />
<br />
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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Weapons and equipment lists ===<br />
<br />
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: [[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapons by Faction ==<br />
<br />
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,57592.msg0.html#new --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Combat Vehicle Renaming==<br />
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. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapon category naming ==<br />
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? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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? --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapon Sub-Categories ==<br />
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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: 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...--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Factory Product Link /==<br />
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. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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|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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unknown ==<br />
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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Doneve, September 30<br />
<br />
:Could be that the Writers Flubbed it, that would not be the first time... wait, which disrepency?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Requests ==<br />
=== Advance & Experimental technology levels ===<br />
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#Custom_Configurations|Serpha Ranna]] from [[Jihad Turning Points: Sian|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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Definately Planning on it... the Rules Level System would be a thing to expand on... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Have done a page for each book to have the Rules levels ... Planning on doing a page for each of the Tech Level variants--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Armor Article Request ===<br />
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? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
::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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Citation needed ===<br />
<br />
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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Equipment Request ===<br />
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! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Man-Portable Weapons Question==<br />
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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Infantry Platoon Creation Rules==<br />
<br />
Have started working on [[User:PerkinsC/IPCRWorksheet|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 [[User:PerkinsC/WeaponsConversionWorkSheet|Infantry Platoon Creation Rules\Weapon Conversion Rules worksheet]].--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Cool. Glad someone finds the worksheet useful.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Now, if i could get it working... could be tonite, but probably will be tomarrow, after get home after work--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Note about Placeholder data in Work Sheet==<br />
<br />
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) <br />
:Huh?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFFFE0; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
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.</div>--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Ah. The light dawns.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Grin--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Infantry Images==<br />
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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks... good to know that there is a reason to buy the new books.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Request==<br />
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. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche<br />
: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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
==Templates==<br />
vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hy Cameron, i jump in, i want to add the InfoBoxWeapon template to [[User:Neuling]]s 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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks much--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Page formating==<br />
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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:not sure what you mean, there are supposed to be some blanks in the table--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==New Support Weapon Article==<br />
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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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.<br />
<br />
== Enhanced ER PPC ==<br />
<br />
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? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 00:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
: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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:: Wait - so every version would get its own page??? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::: 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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Production and Availability Informaiton ==<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: 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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Cameron - Respectfully - I differentiate between "Technical Specifications" and "Production information". Would you at least agree that "Technical Specifications" should be listed first? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 23:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::"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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Creature Infobox==<br />
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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Thug&diff=179003Talk:Thug2011-04-26T14:09:09Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Chassis, and Hatamoto */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:ProjectBattleMech}}<br />
<br />
==Chassis, and Hatamoto==<br />
Scaletail reverted an edit that pointed out the ''Thug'''s chassis was re-used for the ''Hatamoto-Chi''. While it is true that the ''Hatamoto-Chi'' was based off the ''Charger'' (and not the ''Thug''), the editor correctly pointed out that they both use the Earthwerks VOL Endo Steel chassis. I had not even realized that before. I think pointing out this peculiar fact in the article is okay, personally. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 18:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)<br />
:That's not at all what I took away from it. I think putting that information in a section called "related BattleMechs" is confusing. Although there are similarities, the Hatamoto is based on the Charger, not the Thug. Saying that they use the same chassis is fine, but to state that the Thug "served as the basis for the ''Hatamoto''-class of [[Draconis Combine]] assault BattleMechs" is not strictly accurate because, at the least, there were multiple sources of inspiration. I reverted my edits on both pages, but I don't think it should stand as is, either. Sources would be good, too. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I can't get the source right now (I am waiting in my girlfriend's research lab), but if memory serves me correctly, TRO:3050 (original, not revised or upgrade) or one of the other early Clan-invasion sources said essentially that the chassis and weaponry of the ''Thug'' and the ''Hatamoto-Chi'' were related. The relationship stems from a few ''Thug'' BattleMechs given to the [[Draconis Combine]] by [[Comstar]] in preparation for the [[War of 3039]]. The chassis and weaponry were virtually copied, but the armor was altered to change the profile of the ''Hatamoto'' to resemble the ''Charger''. Of course, I might be remembering this all wrong, and ultimately, the writers have clearly written the more recent fluff to emphasize the link between the ''Charger'' and the ''Hatamoto''.--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] 04:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I seriously disagree with many of the Related Battlemech sections on BTW, too many vague links at best, but in this case they are related a little. [[Technical Readout: 3039]] and [[Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade]] indeed retcon that the Combine attempted replicate ''Thug'' using the shunned ''Charger'' as the base while the older TRO:3050s just mentioned the ''Charger II'' link, but even the continually mention it uses the ''Charger''s chassis and to quote directly from TRO:3039 - "Rather than convert an assembly line to produce an all-new chassis, the engineers adopted the Thug’s weaponry to the otherwise shunned Charger". [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 08:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Little Confused... Do the Charger and Thug share the same Chassis Brand Name? At least TRO3039 shows that they are aware of the misconception and wanting to firmly place it as Weapons Thug => Hatamoto while Chassis was Charger => Hatamoto --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 16:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Even in the event that the Chassis Brand Name is the same, it would only mean that the '''materiels mix''' that went into both Chassis were the same, not that the structural '''shape''' is the same, the shape what matters, and '''that''' is from the ''Charger''.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Anti-Personnel_Gauss_Rifle&diff=178998Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle2011-04-26T13:58:22Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| name = AP Gauss Rifle<br />
| Type = [[:Category:Ballistic Weapons|Ballistic]] ([[:Category:Anti-Personnel Weapons|Anti-Infantry]])<br />
| Tech Base = [[Clan]]<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#F|F]]<br />
| Year Availability = [[3069]] [[Clan Jade Falcon|CJF]]<br />
| Year Introduced = [[3069]] [[Clan Jade Falcon|CJF]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#E|E]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#X|X]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#X|X]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#E|E]]<br />
| Heat = 1<br />
| Damage = 3<br />
| Minimum Range = 0<br />
| Short Range = 1-3<br />
| Medium Range = 4-6<br />
| Long Range = 7-9<br />
| Tons = 0.5<br />
| Critical Slots = 1<br />
| Ammo Per Ton = 40<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = 10,000<br />
| Ammo Cost (per ton) = 3,000<br />
| BV (1.0) = N/A<br />
| BV (2.0) = 21<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
Developed in [[3069]] by [[Clan Jade Falcon]]<ref>''TechManual'', p. 218</ref>, the '''Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle''' is a scaled-down [[Gauss Rifle]] meant for work against conventional [[infantry]]. Though the weapon began life as a [[battle armor]] weapon, it was soon adopted by heavier units throughout the [[Clans]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Models==<br />
*Series-9 AP Gauss Rifle <ref>''Technical Readout: 3085'', p. 278 </ref><br />
<br />
*Tau-II Anti-personnel Gauss Rifles <ref>''Technical Readout: 3085'', p. 170 </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*''[[TechManual]]''<br />
*''[[Technical Readout: 3085]]''<br />
*''[[Total Warfare]]''<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons (Heavy Weapons)]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Personnel_Gauss_Rifle&diff=178997Talk:Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle2011-04-26T13:58:10Z<p>PerkinsC: Blanked the page</p>
<hr />
<div></div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Kage&diff=178996Talk:Kage2011-04-26T13:56:17Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Infantry Support Weapons */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{WikiProject Ground Units|tr=new}}<br />
<br />
<br />
==Gauss Rifles==<br />
<br />
I added the variant because of this article :<br />
http://www.wizkidsgames.com/mechwarrior/figuregallery.asp?unitid=2948 .<br />
<br />
It presents the, at the time, brand newly released battle armor, with a short story on Nova Cat (Spirit Cat in fact) using those armors, thanks to their alliance with Draconis Combine, equiped with Tsunami Gauss Rifles. --[[User:FIVE-one|FIVE-one]] 14:14, 12 February 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Infantry Support Weapons==<br />
<br />
The Kage Functions as an [[:Category:Industrial Exoskeletons (Light)|Light Exoskeleton]], and as such halves the crew requirement for any support weapon, typical PA/BA Squad TO&E will have three Infantry Portable [[:Category:Light Weapons]] and one infantry Portable[[:Category:Medium Weapons]] w/crew of 2 or less (2/2=1). The capability exists to have four 2 crew support weapons carried by a PA/BA squad, but this is rare in the canon (even for special forces) and is not recognised by the current version of the [[Infantry Platoon Creation Rules|IPCR]] published in [[Combat Operations]]. Note: when a weapon comes in [[:Category:Battle Armor|BA]] and [[:Category:Infantry Portable|IP]] types only IP type can be carried in the hands/gauntlets of a Powered Armor (including Battle Armor with gauntlets instead of claws)--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Kage&diff=178995Talk:Kage2011-04-26T13:55:35Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Infantry Support Weapons */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{WikiProject Ground Units|tr=new}}<br />
<br />
<br />
==Gauss Rifles==<br />
<br />
I added the variant because of this article :<br />
http://www.wizkidsgames.com/mechwarrior/figuregallery.asp?unitid=2948 .<br />
<br />
It presents the, at the time, brand newly released battle armor, with a short story on Nova Cat (Spirit Cat in fact) using those armors, thanks to their alliance with Draconis Combine, equiped with Tsunami Gauss Rifles. --[[User:FIVE-one|FIVE-one]] 14:14, 12 February 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Infantry Support Weapons==<br />
<br />
The Kage Functions as an [[:CategoryIndustrial Exoskeleton (Light)|Light Exoskeleton]], and as such halves the crew requirement for any support weapon, typical PA/BA Squad TO&E will have three Infantry Portable [[:Category:Light Weapons]] and one infantry Portable[[:Category:Medium Weapons]] w/crew of 2 or less (2/2=1). The capability exists to have four 2 crew support weapons carried by a PA/BA squad, but this is rare in the canon (even for special forces) and is not recognised by the current version of the [[Infantry Platoon Creation Rules|IPCR]] published in [[Combat Operations]]. Note: when a weapon comes in [[:Category:Battle Armor|BA]] and [[:Category:Infantry Portable|IP]] types only IP type can be carried in the hands/gauntlets of a Powered Armor (including Battle Armor with gauntlets instead of claws)--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Heavy_PPC&diff=178994Heavy PPC2011-04-26T13:52:25Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| name = Heavy PPC<br />
| Type = [[:Category:Energy Weapons|Energy Weapons]] ([[:Category:Direct Fire|Direct Fire]])<br />
| Tech Base = [[Inner Sphere]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#E|E]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#X|X]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#X|X]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#E|E]]<br />
| Year Availability = [[3067]] [[Draconis Combine|DC]] <br />
| Year Introduced = [[3067]] [[Draconis Combine|DC]]<br />
| Year Extinction = N/A<br />
| Year Reintroduced = N/A<br />
| Heat = 15<br />
| Damage = 15<br />
| Minimum Range = 3<br />
| Short Range = 1-6<br />
| Medium Range = 7-12<br />
| Long Range = 13-18<br />
| Tons = 10<br />
| Critical Slots = 4<br />
| Ammo Per Ton = N/A<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = 250,000<br />
| Ammo Cost (per ton) = N/A<br />
| BV (1.0) = N/A<br />
| BV (2.0) = 317<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
Developed by the [[Draconis Combine]], the [[Heavy PPC]] is a larger, more potent version of the [[Particle Projector Cannon]]. The Heavy PPC has the same damage potential and heat buildup of a [[Clan]] [[ER PPC]], though it lacks the range of that weapon. During the [[Jihad]], the technology made its way throughout the [[Inner Sphere]].<br />
<br />
==Models==<br />
{| width='500'<br />
! Brand<br />
! Planet<br />
! Company<br />
|-<br />
| Blankenburg<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Blankenburg Technologies]]<br />
|-<br />
| Lord's Light 3<br />
| [[Tok Do ]]<br />
| [[Alshain Weapons]]<br />
|-<br />
| Magna Hellfire<br />
| [[El Dorado]]<br />
| [[General Motors]]<ref name=TRO88>''Technical Readout: 3075'', p. 88</ref><br />
|-<br />
| Magna Supernova<br />
| [[Lopez]]<br />
| [[Magna]]<ref>''Technical Readout: 3085'', p. 248</ref><br />
|-<br />
| Fusigon Strongtooth<br />
| [[Campbelton]]<br />
| [[Fusigon Heavy Weaponry]]<ref>''Technical Readout: 3085'', p. 240, p.254</ref><br />
|-<br />
| Donal Technologies<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Boeing Interstellar]]<ref>''Technical Readout: 3085'', p. 114</ref><br />
|-<br />
| Defiance 753<br />
| [[Hesperus II]]<br />
| [[Defiance Industries]] of Hesperus II<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*''[[TechManual]]''<br />
*''Technical Readout: 3075''<br />
*''[[Total Warfare]]''<br />
*[http://www.battlecorps.com/BC2/news.html?article=223 TMY-1B Toyama Technical Readout]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Heavy Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons (Heavy Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Heavy Weapons (Energy Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:PPC]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Heavy_PPC&diff=178993Heavy PPC2011-04-26T13:52:08Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| name = Heavy PPC<br />
| Type = [[:Category:Energy Weapons|Energy Weapons]] ([[:Category:Direct Fire|Direct Fire]])<br />
| Tech Base = [[Inner Sphere]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#E)|E)]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#X|X]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#X|X]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#E|E]]<br />
| Year Availability = [[3067]] [[Draconis Combine|DC]] <br />
| Year Introduced = [[3067]] [[Draconis Combine|DC]]<br />
| Year Extinction = N/A<br />
| Year Reintroduced = N/A<br />
| Heat = 15<br />
| Damage = 15<br />
| Minimum Range = 3<br />
| Short Range = 1-6<br />
| Medium Range = 7-12<br />
| Long Range = 13-18<br />
| Tons = 10<br />
| Critical Slots = 4<br />
| Ammo Per Ton = N/A<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = 250,000<br />
| Ammo Cost (per ton) = N/A<br />
| BV (1.0) = N/A<br />
| BV (2.0) = 317<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
Developed by the [[Draconis Combine]], the [[Heavy PPC]] is a larger, more potent version of the [[Particle Projector Cannon]]. The Heavy PPC has the same damage potential and heat buildup of a [[Clan]] [[ER PPC]], though it lacks the range of that weapon. During the [[Jihad]], the technology made its way throughout the [[Inner Sphere]].<br />
<br />
==Models==<br />
{| width='500'<br />
! Brand<br />
! Planet<br />
! Company<br />
|-<br />
| Blankenburg<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Blankenburg Technologies]]<br />
|-<br />
| Lord's Light 3<br />
| [[Tok Do ]]<br />
| [[Alshain Weapons]]<br />
|-<br />
| Magna Hellfire<br />
| [[El Dorado]]<br />
| [[General Motors]]<ref name=TRO88>''Technical Readout: 3075'', p. 88</ref><br />
|-<br />
| Magna Supernova<br />
| [[Lopez]]<br />
| [[Magna]]<ref>''Technical Readout: 3085'', p. 248</ref><br />
|-<br />
| Fusigon Strongtooth<br />
| [[Campbelton]]<br />
| [[Fusigon Heavy Weaponry]]<ref>''Technical Readout: 3085'', p. 240, p.254</ref><br />
|-<br />
| Donal Technologies<br />
| [[Terra]]<br />
| [[Boeing Interstellar]]<ref>''Technical Readout: 3085'', p. 114</ref><br />
|-<br />
| Defiance 753<br />
| [[Hesperus II]]<br />
| [[Defiance Industries]] of Hesperus II<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*''[[TechManual]]''<br />
*''Technical Readout: 3075''<br />
*''[[Total Warfare]]''<br />
*[http://www.battlecorps.com/BC2/news.html?article=223 TMY-1B Toyama Technical Readout]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Heavy Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Energy Weapons (Heavy Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:Heavy Weapons (Energy Weapons)]]<br />
[[Category:PPC]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:PerkinsC&diff=178992User talk:PerkinsC2011-04-26T13:37:39Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Enhanced ER PPC */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Welcome==<br />
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 [[BattleTechWiki:New user log|new user log]]. If you want to continue to improve BattleMech articles, you may wish to sign up at [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|Project BattleMechs]]. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:16, 1 March 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Awards Section ==<br />
<br />
=== Awards board ===<br />
<br />
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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Weapons and equipment lists ===<br />
<br />
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: [[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapons by Faction ==<br />
<br />
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,57592.msg0.html#new --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Combat Vehicle Renaming==<br />
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. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapon category naming ==<br />
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? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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? --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapon Sub-Categories ==<br />
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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: 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...--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Factory Product Link /==<br />
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. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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|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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unknown ==<br />
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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Doneve, September 30<br />
<br />
:Could be that the Writers Flubbed it, that would not be the first time... wait, which disrepency?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Requests ==<br />
=== Advance & Experimental technology levels ===<br />
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#Custom_Configurations|Serpha Ranna]] from [[Jihad Turning Points: Sian|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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Definately Planning on it... the Rules Level System would be a thing to expand on... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Have done a page for each book to have the Rules levels ... Planning on doing a page for each of the Tech Level variants--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Armor Article Request ===<br />
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? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
::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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Citation needed ===<br />
<br />
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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Equipment Request ===<br />
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! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Man-Portable Weapons Question==<br />
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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Infantry Platoon Creation Rules==<br />
<br />
Have started working on [[User:PerkinsC/IPCRWorksheet|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 [[User:PerkinsC/WeaponsConversionWorkSheet|Infantry Platoon Creation Rules\Weapon Conversion Rules worksheet]].--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Cool. Glad someone finds the worksheet useful.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Now, if i could get it working... could be tonite, but probably will be tomarrow, after get home after work--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Note about Placeholder data in Work Sheet==<br />
<br />
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) <br />
:Huh?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFFFE0; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
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.</div>--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Ah. The light dawns.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Grin--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Infantry Images==<br />
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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks... good to know that there is a reason to buy the new books.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Request==<br />
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. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche<br />
: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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
==Templates==<br />
vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hy Cameron, i jump in, i want to add the InfoBoxWeapon template to [[User:Neuling]]s 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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks much--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Page formating==<br />
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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:not sure what you mean, there are supposed to be some blanks in the table--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==New Support Weapon Article==<br />
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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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.<br />
<br />
== Enhanced ER PPC ==<br />
<br />
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? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 00:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
: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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:: Wait - so every version would get its own page??? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::: 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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:::: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Production and Availability Informaiton ==<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
: 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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::: Cameron - Respectfully - I differentiate between "Technical Specifications" and "Production information". Would you at least agree that "Technical Specifications" should be listed first? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 23:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::"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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Creature Infobox==<br />
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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:PerkinsC&diff=178991User talk:PerkinsC2011-04-26T13:28:11Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Production and Availability Informaiton */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Welcome==<br />
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 [[BattleTechWiki:New user log|new user log]]. If you want to continue to improve BattleMech articles, you may wish to sign up at [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|Project BattleMechs]]. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:16, 1 March 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Awards Section ==<br />
<br />
=== Awards board ===<br />
<br />
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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Weapons and equipment lists ===<br />
<br />
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: [[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapons by Faction ==<br />
<br />
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,57592.msg0.html#new --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Combat Vehicle Renaming==<br />
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. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapon category naming ==<br />
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? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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? --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Infantry Weapon Sub-Categories ==<br />
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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: 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...--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Factory Product Link /==<br />
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. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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|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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Unknown ==<br />
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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Doneve, September 30<br />
<br />
:Could be that the Writers Flubbed it, that would not be the first time... wait, which disrepency?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Requests ==<br />
=== Advance & Experimental technology levels ===<br />
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#Custom_Configurations|Serpha Ranna]] from [[Jihad Turning Points: Sian|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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Definately Planning on it... the Rules Level System would be a thing to expand on... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Have done a page for each book to have the Rules levels ... Planning on doing a page for each of the Tech Level variants--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Armor Article Request ===<br />
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? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
::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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
::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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Citation needed ===<br />
<br />
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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Equipment Request ===<br />
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! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Man-Portable Weapons Question==<br />
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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Infantry Platoon Creation Rules==<br />
<br />
Have started working on [[User:PerkinsC/IPCRWorksheet|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 [[User:PerkinsC/WeaponsConversionWorkSheet|Infantry Platoon Creation Rules\Weapon Conversion Rules worksheet]].--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Cool. Glad someone finds the worksheet useful.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Now, if i could get it working... could be tonite, but probably will be tomarrow, after get home after work--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Note about Placeholder data in Work Sheet==<br />
<br />
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) <br />
:Huh?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#FFFFE0; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"><br />
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.</div>--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Ah. The light dawns.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)<br />
::Grin--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Infantry Images==<br />
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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks... good to know that there is a reason to buy the new books.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Request==<br />
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. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche<br />
: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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
==Templates==<br />
vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hy Cameron, i jump in, i want to add the InfoBoxWeapon template to [[User:Neuling]]s 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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks much--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Page formating==<br />
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.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:not sure what you mean, there are supposed to be some blanks in the table--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==New Support Weapon Article==<br />
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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::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.<br />
<br />
== Enhanced ER PPC ==<br />
<br />
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? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 00:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
: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--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:: Wait - so every version would get its own page??? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::: 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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Production and Availability Informaiton ==<br />
<br />
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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
: 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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
:: 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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::: Cameron - Respectfully - I differentiate between "Technical Specifications" and "Production information". Would you at least agree that "Technical Specifications" should be listed first? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 23:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::"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. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
::::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.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Creature Infobox==<br />
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--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Inner_Sphere_military_structure&diff=178947Inner Sphere military structure2011-04-25T20:27:36Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Infantry */</p>
<hr />
<div>Every military unit in the [[BattleTech]] universe, whether regular or [[Mercenaries|mercenary]], is divided into sub-units to facilitate organization, deployment, and combat operations. Mercenary units are extremely varied; some, like [[Carlyle's Commandos]] were a single lance while others, like [[Eridani Light Horse]], [[Wolf's Dragoons]], and the [[12th Star Guards]], consist of several regiments.<br />
<br />
There is some common terminology for these organizational structure, but there are differences between [[BattleMech]], infantry, and [[Aerospace Fighter]] units. There are also disparities between the five great houses and especially between entities in the [[Periphery]]. [[Clan military structure]] and that of [[ComStar]] and the [[Word of Blake]]'s military forces are substantially different than any [[Inner Sphere]] unit organizations.<br />
<br />
==Unit Organization==<br />
Each unit is organized differently in practice, but many follow a basic organizational structure that enables them to integrate with other units easily and effectively.<br />
<br />
===Lance===<br />
[[Image:MechLance.jpg|An attacking Lance consisting of a [[Cicada]], [[Quickdraw]], [[Grasshopper]] and a [[Catapult]]|thumb|right|250px]]<br />
The '''lance''' is the smallest organizational unit, equivalent to an infantry platoon. A 'Mech lance consists of four separate BattleMechs (although occasionally a "light lance" consists of only three 'Mechs) and are categorized based upon the average weight of the 'Mechs that comprise it (Light, Medium, Heavy, Assault). A lance commander is usually either a non-commissioned officer (NCO) or a low grade officer (lieutenant or equivalent). Lance commanders are directly engaged in combat operations and are responsible for the 'Mechs under their command.<br />
<br />
In addition to four 'Mech pilots, there are normally four to six additional support personnel, making a lance roughly ten individuals. Three lances comprise a company.<br />
<br />
====Augmented Lance====<br />
After learning of the Novas used by the Clans, the [[CCAF]] began to experiment with mixing unit types. Their first successful experiment created an Augmented Mech Lance that combined four [[BattleMechs]] with two combat vehicles. This became the "standard" augmented 'Mech lance. A "secondary" augmented 'Mech lance was created by combining four BattleMechs with two squads of battle armored infantry. The CCAF then turned their attention to Armor lances. The "standard" augmented armor lance combines four combat vehicles with two BattleMechs; The "secondary" augmented armor lance combines four combat vehicles with four suits of battle armor-equipped infantry.<ref>''Field Manual: Capellan Confederation'', p. 36</ref><br />
<br />
===Company===<br />
A '''company''' consists of three lances and normally some ancillary units, usually scout, armor, or artillery. A company commander is normally either a major or captain (or equivalent). The company commander is usually the leader of the command lance of a company and is directly involved in combat operations. Companies are more self-sufficient than lances and consist of the combat troops and support personnel, including medical, technician, and planetary transport vehicles ([[DropShip|DropShips]]). Companies may also provide reconnaissance and artillery support lances under its command. <br />
<br />
In addition to twelve 'Mech pilots and the eighteen support personnel, there are usually additional support or specialist personnel, making a company roughly sixty individuals. Three companies comprise a battalion. Mercenary units commonly do not exceed the size of a company.<br />
<br />
====Augmented Company====<br />
This formation is used only by the CCAF. It has the twelve combat units of a typical company, but these are organized into two Augmented Lances of any type.<ref>''Field Manual: Capellan Confederation'', p. 36</ref><br />
<br />
===Battalion===<br />
A '''battalion''' consists of three companies and is a large organization. It is normally composed of at least thirty-six 'Mechs plus aerospace, artillery, reconnaissance, medical, and numerous other support staff and personnel. Overall, a battalion may consist of over two or three hundred individuals. Battalions are commanded by either a lieutenant colonel (or equivalent). Battalion commanders normally do not participate directly in combat operations, but personal preference dictates this. Most battalion commanders direct operations rather than engage enemy forces.<br />
<br />
Battalions are extremely self-sufficient and capable fighting forces. They are capable of traveling over the surface of a planet and deploying significant fire power anywhere within a short period of time. Many mercenary units never achieve a size comparable to that of a battalion.<br />
<br />
====Square Battalion====<br />
A variant battalion consisting of four companies, and may also have a [[Dictionary#C|Command Lance]] (48 BattleMechs/aerospace fighters). This organizational structure came about when the [[Inner Sphere]] militaries re-purposed the air lance that would support each company.<br />
<br />
===Regiment===<br />
'''Regiments''' are very large organizations and the great houses normally organize their regular units into regiments. This is traditionally the lowest level of organization that a house's high command will direct (outside of mercenary units). Regiments are commanded by colonels or their equivalent. Regimental commanders rarely engage in combat operations personally; the ability to organize a regimental-sized group is usually not possible on the field of battle. The size of the unit in personnel is not just based upon the combat forces, but it also includes the technical, transportation, scout, and other support personnel and materiel. Regiments are self-sufficient units and usually have their own dedicated DropShips and possibly even [[JumpShip]].<br />
<br />
Regiments generally consist of three battalions with much of the transportation and support units reporting either to the commander of the regiment or, in some cases, to the senior battalion commander. Overall, a regiment consists of well over one or two thousand personnel, including over one hundred twenty-six BattleMechs and at least one or two DropShips.<br />
<br />
====Regimental Combat Team====<br />
Developed by [[First Prince]] [[Melissa Davion]] after she came to power in [[2876]],<ref>''House Davion (The Federated Suns)'', p. 81</ref> the [[AFFS]] '''Regimental Combat Team''' is a large multi-regiment formation that consists of a regiment of [[BattleMech]]s, three regiments of combat vehicles, five regiments of infantry, two AeroSpace Fighter wings, and a battalion of artillery.<ref>''House Davion (The Federated Suns)'', p. 126</ref><ref>''Field Manual: Federated Suns'', p. 18</ref> Unlike the task forces that had been used previously, these regiments are permanently assigned to work together. These RCTs are usually named for the BattleMech regiment.<br />
<br />
====Light Combat Team====<br />
After the widespread destruction of the [[Jihad]], the [[AFFS]] shifted to a defensive mindset. Though it still had several RCTs on the rolls, the majority of the units were rebuilt as '''Light Combat Teams'''. Smaller versions of the AFFS' traditional RCT, the LCT was a reinforced battalion of 'Mechs, four to six battalions of combat vehicles, and an artillery company. Dedicated VTOL assets transport battle armor formations, and the large conventional infantry forces of the RCT have been reduced to those troops needed to provide engineering, security, and other support roles.<ref>''Field Report: AFFS'', p. 5</ref><br />
<br />
===Larger Formations ===<br />
Though no longer in common use, there are several larger formations that military planners accept as common terms.<br />
==== Brigade ====<br />
A '''Brigade''' is a military formation typically consisting of 3 or more [[regiment]]s, usually of similar weight classes and capabilities. This formation was used extensively by the [[SLDF]] (who called them Regimental Combat Teams), but is no longer used by most Inner Sphere militaries. Brigades are usually commanded by a [[General]]. Brigades were usually limited to being no more than five regiments in size for administrative purposes.<br />
<br />
Examples of BattleMech brigades include the [[Eridani Light Horse]], [[Northwind Highlanders]], [[Deneb Light Cavalry]], or the [[Sword of Light]]. The Armor and Infantry units of the Federated Sun's Regimental Combat Teams are also referred to as brigades.<br />
<br />
==== Division ====<br />
A '''Division''' is a grouping of two or more brigades. They were also commanded by a General. There are no division-sized formations known to exist in the Inner Sphere. An example would be the Eridani Light Horse Brigade and the Northwind Highlander Brigade operating under one commander.<br />
<br />
The [[ComGuard]]s use the term Division to refer to their [[Level IV]] units, which consist of 216 combatants. In reality these units are approximately the size of two regiments, which makes them more a Brigade sized formation.<br />
<br />
==== Corps ====<br />
Used only by the SLDF, a '''Corps''' was a group of military forces that defended between 30 and 100 worlds.<ref>''The Star League'', p. 133</ref> Unlike regiments, brigades, and divisions, there was no "standard" or "typical" corps. They typically consisted of one to three BattleMech Divisions, two to seven infantry divisions, with enough [[WarShip]]s and transport JumpShips to move the entire unit. Each Star League Member State hosted between one and four Corps-sized units.<br />
<br />
==== Army ====<br />
During the [[Reunification War]], the '''Army''' replaced the Corps as the main organizational unit of the SLDF. Each Army consisted of the Corps level units hosted by the Star League Member State.<ref>''The Star League'', p. 133</ref> <br />
<br />
As units of this size became impossible due to the damage of the Succession Wars, the term fell out of common military parlance until the ComGuards reactivated it to describe their [[Level V]] units. These units, like the SLDF Corps and Armies that preceded them, covered large parts of each of the Successor States. Unlike the SLDF, a ComGuard Army is mostly an administrative term. The [[Battle of Tukayyid]] is the only time ComStar has deployed Army-sized formations in combat.<br />
<br />
==Variations==<br />
While the BattleMech organizational structure is common, there are two other unit types that engage in combat operations both in space and on the ground. <br />
<br />
===Aerospace===<br />
As mentioned earlier, aerospace units are half the size of BattleMech units (a lance has two fighters as opposed to four 'Mechs). DropShips and JumpShips are normally not grouped together, but are treated as independent support troops.<br />
<br />
; <span id="Flight">Flight</span> <br />
Typical Inner Sphere formation consisting of 2 - Aerospace Fighters, Coventional, VTOLs, WIGE type craft<ref>''Total Warefare'', p. 34 - Organization - Lance/Battalions/Platoons - Flight description.</ref><br />
<br />
; <span id="Squadron">Squadron</span> <br />
Typical Inner Sphere formation consisting of 6 units or aireborne vehicles. Consisting of 3 flights. This does not include a Command Flight for the unit's commanding officer.<br />
<br />
; <span id="Wing">[[Wing (Military Unit)|Wing]]</span> <br />
Typically Battalion size formation, consisting of 18 airborne vehicles. Not counting a Command Flight of 2 additional aerospace vehicles.<br />
<br />
; <span id="Regiment">Regiment</span> <br />
Consisting of 2 - 3 Wings of airborne vehicles, including Command Flight.<br />
<br />
===Infantry===<br />
{{seealso|Inner Sphere Infantry Platoon Organization}}<br />
Infantry is divided into slightly different organizational units that can be integrated into traditional BattleMech units. The structure of an infantry unit is shown below:<br />
* '''Fire team''' - consists of three to five individuals<br />
* '''Squad''' - comprised of two fire teams and a squad leader (seven to twelve individuals)<br />
* '''Platoon''' - comprised of two or more squads plus support personnel (twenty-five to fifty individuals). In the 3025 time period the standard platoon had one support weapons squad and three "line" squads.<br />
* '''Company''' - comprised of two or more platoons (seventy to over two hundred individuals)<br />
* '''Battalion''' - comprised of two to six companies (three hundred to one thousand individuals)<br />
<br />
Combat in the thirty-first and thirty-second centuries has placed far less emphasis on infantry than previous conflicts so it is unusual to see infantry units larger than a company in size. It is common for squads and platoons to support BattleMech operations and to perform general patrol and scout duties.<br />
<br />
====Battle Armor====<br />
{{seealso|Inner Sphere Battle Armor Organization}}<br />
Infantry units equipped with [[Battle Armor]] are organized differently from their conventional counterparts, due to their increased combat performance. Organized similarly to BattleMech units, Battle Armor units use the following structure.<ref>''Total Warfare'', p. 214 - "Battle Armor Organization"</ref><br />
<br />
* '''Squad''' - consists of four battle armored infantry.<br />
* '''Platoon''' - consists of three squads and support elements.<br />
* '''Company''' - consists of three platoons and support elements.<br />
* '''Battalion''' - consists of three companies and support elements.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*''[[Field Manual: Capellan Confederation]]''<br />
*''[[The Star League]]''<br />
*''[[Total Warfare]]''<br />
*''[[Field Manual: Federated Suns]]''<br />
*''[[House Davion (The Federated Suns)]]''<br />
*''[[Field Report: AFFS]]''</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Inner_Sphere_military_structure&diff=178946Inner Sphere military structure2011-04-25T20:27:21Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Infantry */</p>
<hr />
<div>Every military unit in the [[BattleTech]] universe, whether regular or [[Mercenaries|mercenary]], is divided into sub-units to facilitate organization, deployment, and combat operations. Mercenary units are extremely varied; some, like [[Carlyle's Commandos]] were a single lance while others, like [[Eridani Light Horse]], [[Wolf's Dragoons]], and the [[12th Star Guards]], consist of several regiments.<br />
<br />
There is some common terminology for these organizational structure, but there are differences between [[BattleMech]], infantry, and [[Aerospace Fighter]] units. There are also disparities between the five great houses and especially between entities in the [[Periphery]]. [[Clan military structure]] and that of [[ComStar]] and the [[Word of Blake]]'s military forces are substantially different than any [[Inner Sphere]] unit organizations.<br />
<br />
==Unit Organization==<br />
Each unit is organized differently in practice, but many follow a basic organizational structure that enables them to integrate with other units easily and effectively.<br />
<br />
===Lance===<br />
[[Image:MechLance.jpg|An attacking Lance consisting of a [[Cicada]], [[Quickdraw]], [[Grasshopper]] and a [[Catapult]]|thumb|right|250px]]<br />
The '''lance''' is the smallest organizational unit, equivalent to an infantry platoon. A 'Mech lance consists of four separate BattleMechs (although occasionally a "light lance" consists of only three 'Mechs) and are categorized based upon the average weight of the 'Mechs that comprise it (Light, Medium, Heavy, Assault). A lance commander is usually either a non-commissioned officer (NCO) or a low grade officer (lieutenant or equivalent). Lance commanders are directly engaged in combat operations and are responsible for the 'Mechs under their command.<br />
<br />
In addition to four 'Mech pilots, there are normally four to six additional support personnel, making a lance roughly ten individuals. Three lances comprise a company.<br />
<br />
====Augmented Lance====<br />
After learning of the Novas used by the Clans, the [[CCAF]] began to experiment with mixing unit types. Their first successful experiment created an Augmented Mech Lance that combined four [[BattleMechs]] with two combat vehicles. This became the "standard" augmented 'Mech lance. A "secondary" augmented 'Mech lance was created by combining four BattleMechs with two squads of battle armored infantry. The CCAF then turned their attention to Armor lances. The "standard" augmented armor lance combines four combat vehicles with two BattleMechs; The "secondary" augmented armor lance combines four combat vehicles with four suits of battle armor-equipped infantry.<ref>''Field Manual: Capellan Confederation'', p. 36</ref><br />
<br />
===Company===<br />
A '''company''' consists of three lances and normally some ancillary units, usually scout, armor, or artillery. A company commander is normally either a major or captain (or equivalent). The company commander is usually the leader of the command lance of a company and is directly involved in combat operations. Companies are more self-sufficient than lances and consist of the combat troops and support personnel, including medical, technician, and planetary transport vehicles ([[DropShip|DropShips]]). Companies may also provide reconnaissance and artillery support lances under its command. <br />
<br />
In addition to twelve 'Mech pilots and the eighteen support personnel, there are usually additional support or specialist personnel, making a company roughly sixty individuals. Three companies comprise a battalion. Mercenary units commonly do not exceed the size of a company.<br />
<br />
====Augmented Company====<br />
This formation is used only by the CCAF. It has the twelve combat units of a typical company, but these are organized into two Augmented Lances of any type.<ref>''Field Manual: Capellan Confederation'', p. 36</ref><br />
<br />
===Battalion===<br />
A '''battalion''' consists of three companies and is a large organization. It is normally composed of at least thirty-six 'Mechs plus aerospace, artillery, reconnaissance, medical, and numerous other support staff and personnel. Overall, a battalion may consist of over two or three hundred individuals. Battalions are commanded by either a lieutenant colonel (or equivalent). Battalion commanders normally do not participate directly in combat operations, but personal preference dictates this. Most battalion commanders direct operations rather than engage enemy forces.<br />
<br />
Battalions are extremely self-sufficient and capable fighting forces. They are capable of traveling over the surface of a planet and deploying significant fire power anywhere within a short period of time. Many mercenary units never achieve a size comparable to that of a battalion.<br />
<br />
====Square Battalion====<br />
A variant battalion consisting of four companies, and may also have a [[Dictionary#C|Command Lance]] (48 BattleMechs/aerospace fighters). This organizational structure came about when the [[Inner Sphere]] militaries re-purposed the air lance that would support each company.<br />
<br />
===Regiment===<br />
'''Regiments''' are very large organizations and the great houses normally organize their regular units into regiments. This is traditionally the lowest level of organization that a house's high command will direct (outside of mercenary units). Regiments are commanded by colonels or their equivalent. Regimental commanders rarely engage in combat operations personally; the ability to organize a regimental-sized group is usually not possible on the field of battle. The size of the unit in personnel is not just based upon the combat forces, but it also includes the technical, transportation, scout, and other support personnel and materiel. Regiments are self-sufficient units and usually have their own dedicated DropShips and possibly even [[JumpShip]].<br />
<br />
Regiments generally consist of three battalions with much of the transportation and support units reporting either to the commander of the regiment or, in some cases, to the senior battalion commander. Overall, a regiment consists of well over one or two thousand personnel, including over one hundred twenty-six BattleMechs and at least one or two DropShips.<br />
<br />
====Regimental Combat Team====<br />
Developed by [[First Prince]] [[Melissa Davion]] after she came to power in [[2876]],<ref>''House Davion (The Federated Suns)'', p. 81</ref> the [[AFFS]] '''Regimental Combat Team''' is a large multi-regiment formation that consists of a regiment of [[BattleMech]]s, three regiments of combat vehicles, five regiments of infantry, two AeroSpace Fighter wings, and a battalion of artillery.<ref>''House Davion (The Federated Suns)'', p. 126</ref><ref>''Field Manual: Federated Suns'', p. 18</ref> Unlike the task forces that had been used previously, these regiments are permanently assigned to work together. These RCTs are usually named for the BattleMech regiment.<br />
<br />
====Light Combat Team====<br />
After the widespread destruction of the [[Jihad]], the [[AFFS]] shifted to a defensive mindset. Though it still had several RCTs on the rolls, the majority of the units were rebuilt as '''Light Combat Teams'''. Smaller versions of the AFFS' traditional RCT, the LCT was a reinforced battalion of 'Mechs, four to six battalions of combat vehicles, and an artillery company. Dedicated VTOL assets transport battle armor formations, and the large conventional infantry forces of the RCT have been reduced to those troops needed to provide engineering, security, and other support roles.<ref>''Field Report: AFFS'', p. 5</ref><br />
<br />
===Larger Formations ===<br />
Though no longer in common use, there are several larger formations that military planners accept as common terms.<br />
==== Brigade ====<br />
A '''Brigade''' is a military formation typically consisting of 3 or more [[regiment]]s, usually of similar weight classes and capabilities. This formation was used extensively by the [[SLDF]] (who called them Regimental Combat Teams), but is no longer used by most Inner Sphere militaries. Brigades are usually commanded by a [[General]]. Brigades were usually limited to being no more than five regiments in size for administrative purposes.<br />
<br />
Examples of BattleMech brigades include the [[Eridani Light Horse]], [[Northwind Highlanders]], [[Deneb Light Cavalry]], or the [[Sword of Light]]. The Armor and Infantry units of the Federated Sun's Regimental Combat Teams are also referred to as brigades.<br />
<br />
==== Division ====<br />
A '''Division''' is a grouping of two or more brigades. They were also commanded by a General. There are no division-sized formations known to exist in the Inner Sphere. An example would be the Eridani Light Horse Brigade and the Northwind Highlander Brigade operating under one commander.<br />
<br />
The [[ComGuard]]s use the term Division to refer to their [[Level IV]] units, which consist of 216 combatants. In reality these units are approximately the size of two regiments, which makes them more a Brigade sized formation.<br />
<br />
==== Corps ====<br />
Used only by the SLDF, a '''Corps''' was a group of military forces that defended between 30 and 100 worlds.<ref>''The Star League'', p. 133</ref> Unlike regiments, brigades, and divisions, there was no "standard" or "typical" corps. They typically consisted of one to three BattleMech Divisions, two to seven infantry divisions, with enough [[WarShip]]s and transport JumpShips to move the entire unit. Each Star League Member State hosted between one and four Corps-sized units.<br />
<br />
==== Army ====<br />
During the [[Reunification War]], the '''Army''' replaced the Corps as the main organizational unit of the SLDF. Each Army consisted of the Corps level units hosted by the Star League Member State.<ref>''The Star League'', p. 133</ref> <br />
<br />
As units of this size became impossible due to the damage of the Succession Wars, the term fell out of common military parlance until the ComGuards reactivated it to describe their [[Level V]] units. These units, like the SLDF Corps and Armies that preceded them, covered large parts of each of the Successor States. Unlike the SLDF, a ComGuard Army is mostly an administrative term. The [[Battle of Tukayyid]] is the only time ComStar has deployed Army-sized formations in combat.<br />
<br />
==Variations==<br />
While the BattleMech organizational structure is common, there are two other unit types that engage in combat operations both in space and on the ground. <br />
<br />
===Aerospace===<br />
As mentioned earlier, aerospace units are half the size of BattleMech units (a lance has two fighters as opposed to four 'Mechs). DropShips and JumpShips are normally not grouped together, but are treated as independent support troops.<br />
<br />
; <span id="Flight">Flight</span> <br />
Typical Inner Sphere formation consisting of 2 - Aerospace Fighters, Coventional, VTOLs, WIGE type craft<ref>''Total Warefare'', p. 34 - Organization - Lance/Battalions/Platoons - Flight description.</ref><br />
<br />
; <span id="Squadron">Squadron</span> <br />
Typical Inner Sphere formation consisting of 6 units or aireborne vehicles. Consisting of 3 flights. This does not include a Command Flight for the unit's commanding officer.<br />
<br />
; <span id="Wing">[[Wing (Military Unit)|Wing]]</span> <br />
Typically Battalion size formation, consisting of 18 airborne vehicles. Not counting a Command Flight of 2 additional aerospace vehicles.<br />
<br />
; <span id="Regiment">Regiment</span> <br />
Consisting of 2 - 3 Wings of airborne vehicles, including Command Flight.<br />
<br />
===Infantry===<br />
{{seealso|Inner Sphere infantry Platoon Organization}}<br />
Infantry is divided into slightly different organizational units that can be integrated into traditional BattleMech units. The structure of an infantry unit is shown below:<br />
* '''Fire team''' - consists of three to five individuals<br />
* '''Squad''' - comprised of two fire teams and a squad leader (seven to twelve individuals)<br />
* '''Platoon''' - comprised of two or more squads plus support personnel (twenty-five to fifty individuals). In the 3025 time period the standard platoon had one support weapons squad and three "line" squads.<br />
* '''Company''' - comprised of two or more platoons (seventy to over two hundred individuals)<br />
* '''Battalion''' - comprised of two to six companies (three hundred to one thousand individuals)<br />
<br />
Combat in the thirty-first and thirty-second centuries has placed far less emphasis on infantry than previous conflicts so it is unusual to see infantry units larger than a company in size. It is common for squads and platoons to support BattleMech operations and to perform general patrol and scout duties.<br />
<br />
====Battle Armor====<br />
{{seealso|Inner Sphere Battle Armor Organization}}<br />
Infantry units equipped with [[Battle Armor]] are organized differently from their conventional counterparts, due to their increased combat performance. Organized similarly to BattleMech units, Battle Armor units use the following structure.<ref>''Total Warfare'', p. 214 - "Battle Armor Organization"</ref><br />
<br />
* '''Squad''' - consists of four battle armored infantry.<br />
* '''Platoon''' - consists of three squads and support elements.<br />
* '''Company''' - consists of three platoons and support elements.<br />
* '''Battalion''' - consists of three companies and support elements.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*''[[Field Manual: Capellan Confederation]]''<br />
*''[[The Star League]]''<br />
*''[[Total Warfare]]''<br />
*''[[Field Manual: Federated Suns]]''<br />
*''[[House Davion (The Federated Suns)]]''<br />
*''[[Field Report: AFFS]]''</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Inner_Sphere_military_structure&diff=178945Inner Sphere military structure2011-04-25T20:26:36Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Infantry */</p>
<hr />
<div>Every military unit in the [[BattleTech]] universe, whether regular or [[Mercenaries|mercenary]], is divided into sub-units to facilitate organization, deployment, and combat operations. Mercenary units are extremely varied; some, like [[Carlyle's Commandos]] were a single lance while others, like [[Eridani Light Horse]], [[Wolf's Dragoons]], and the [[12th Star Guards]], consist of several regiments.<br />
<br />
There is some common terminology for these organizational structure, but there are differences between [[BattleMech]], infantry, and [[Aerospace Fighter]] units. There are also disparities between the five great houses and especially between entities in the [[Periphery]]. [[Clan military structure]] and that of [[ComStar]] and the [[Word of Blake]]'s military forces are substantially different than any [[Inner Sphere]] unit organizations.<br />
<br />
==Unit Organization==<br />
Each unit is organized differently in practice, but many follow a basic organizational structure that enables them to integrate with other units easily and effectively.<br />
<br />
===Lance===<br />
[[Image:MechLance.jpg|An attacking Lance consisting of a [[Cicada]], [[Quickdraw]], [[Grasshopper]] and a [[Catapult]]|thumb|right|250px]]<br />
The '''lance''' is the smallest organizational unit, equivalent to an infantry platoon. A 'Mech lance consists of four separate BattleMechs (although occasionally a "light lance" consists of only three 'Mechs) and are categorized based upon the average weight of the 'Mechs that comprise it (Light, Medium, Heavy, Assault). A lance commander is usually either a non-commissioned officer (NCO) or a low grade officer (lieutenant or equivalent). Lance commanders are directly engaged in combat operations and are responsible for the 'Mechs under their command.<br />
<br />
In addition to four 'Mech pilots, there are normally four to six additional support personnel, making a lance roughly ten individuals. Three lances comprise a company.<br />
<br />
====Augmented Lance====<br />
After learning of the Novas used by the Clans, the [[CCAF]] began to experiment with mixing unit types. Their first successful experiment created an Augmented Mech Lance that combined four [[BattleMechs]] with two combat vehicles. This became the "standard" augmented 'Mech lance. A "secondary" augmented 'Mech lance was created by combining four BattleMechs with two squads of battle armored infantry. The CCAF then turned their attention to Armor lances. The "standard" augmented armor lance combines four combat vehicles with two BattleMechs; The "secondary" augmented armor lance combines four combat vehicles with four suits of battle armor-equipped infantry.<ref>''Field Manual: Capellan Confederation'', p. 36</ref><br />
<br />
===Company===<br />
A '''company''' consists of three lances and normally some ancillary units, usually scout, armor, or artillery. A company commander is normally either a major or captain (or equivalent). The company commander is usually the leader of the command lance of a company and is directly involved in combat operations. Companies are more self-sufficient than lances and consist of the combat troops and support personnel, including medical, technician, and planetary transport vehicles ([[DropShip|DropShips]]). Companies may also provide reconnaissance and artillery support lances under its command. <br />
<br />
In addition to twelve 'Mech pilots and the eighteen support personnel, there are usually additional support or specialist personnel, making a company roughly sixty individuals. Three companies comprise a battalion. Mercenary units commonly do not exceed the size of a company.<br />
<br />
====Augmented Company====<br />
This formation is used only by the CCAF. It has the twelve combat units of a typical company, but these are organized into two Augmented Lances of any type.<ref>''Field Manual: Capellan Confederation'', p. 36</ref><br />
<br />
===Battalion===<br />
A '''battalion''' consists of three companies and is a large organization. It is normally composed of at least thirty-six 'Mechs plus aerospace, artillery, reconnaissance, medical, and numerous other support staff and personnel. Overall, a battalion may consist of over two or three hundred individuals. Battalions are commanded by either a lieutenant colonel (or equivalent). Battalion commanders normally do not participate directly in combat operations, but personal preference dictates this. Most battalion commanders direct operations rather than engage enemy forces.<br />
<br />
Battalions are extremely self-sufficient and capable fighting forces. They are capable of traveling over the surface of a planet and deploying significant fire power anywhere within a short period of time. Many mercenary units never achieve a size comparable to that of a battalion.<br />
<br />
====Square Battalion====<br />
A variant battalion consisting of four companies, and may also have a [[Dictionary#C|Command Lance]] (48 BattleMechs/aerospace fighters). This organizational structure came about when the [[Inner Sphere]] militaries re-purposed the air lance that would support each company.<br />
<br />
===Regiment===<br />
'''Regiments''' are very large organizations and the great houses normally organize their regular units into regiments. This is traditionally the lowest level of organization that a house's high command will direct (outside of mercenary units). Regiments are commanded by colonels or their equivalent. Regimental commanders rarely engage in combat operations personally; the ability to organize a regimental-sized group is usually not possible on the field of battle. The size of the unit in personnel is not just based upon the combat forces, but it also includes the technical, transportation, scout, and other support personnel and materiel. Regiments are self-sufficient units and usually have their own dedicated DropShips and possibly even [[JumpShip]].<br />
<br />
Regiments generally consist of three battalions with much of the transportation and support units reporting either to the commander of the regiment or, in some cases, to the senior battalion commander. Overall, a regiment consists of well over one or two thousand personnel, including over one hundred twenty-six BattleMechs and at least one or two DropShips.<br />
<br />
====Regimental Combat Team====<br />
Developed by [[First Prince]] [[Melissa Davion]] after she came to power in [[2876]],<ref>''House Davion (The Federated Suns)'', p. 81</ref> the [[AFFS]] '''Regimental Combat Team''' is a large multi-regiment formation that consists of a regiment of [[BattleMech]]s, three regiments of combat vehicles, five regiments of infantry, two AeroSpace Fighter wings, and a battalion of artillery.<ref>''House Davion (The Federated Suns)'', p. 126</ref><ref>''Field Manual: Federated Suns'', p. 18</ref> Unlike the task forces that had been used previously, these regiments are permanently assigned to work together. These RCTs are usually named for the BattleMech regiment.<br />
<br />
====Light Combat Team====<br />
After the widespread destruction of the [[Jihad]], the [[AFFS]] shifted to a defensive mindset. Though it still had several RCTs on the rolls, the majority of the units were rebuilt as '''Light Combat Teams'''. Smaller versions of the AFFS' traditional RCT, the LCT was a reinforced battalion of 'Mechs, four to six battalions of combat vehicles, and an artillery company. Dedicated VTOL assets transport battle armor formations, and the large conventional infantry forces of the RCT have been reduced to those troops needed to provide engineering, security, and other support roles.<ref>''Field Report: AFFS'', p. 5</ref><br />
<br />
===Larger Formations ===<br />
Though no longer in common use, there are several larger formations that military planners accept as common terms.<br />
==== Brigade ====<br />
A '''Brigade''' is a military formation typically consisting of 3 or more [[regiment]]s, usually of similar weight classes and capabilities. This formation was used extensively by the [[SLDF]] (who called them Regimental Combat Teams), but is no longer used by most Inner Sphere militaries. Brigades are usually commanded by a [[General]]. Brigades were usually limited to being no more than five regiments in size for administrative purposes.<br />
<br />
Examples of BattleMech brigades include the [[Eridani Light Horse]], [[Northwind Highlanders]], [[Deneb Light Cavalry]], or the [[Sword of Light]]. The Armor and Infantry units of the Federated Sun's Regimental Combat Teams are also referred to as brigades.<br />
<br />
==== Division ====<br />
A '''Division''' is a grouping of two or more brigades. They were also commanded by a General. There are no division-sized formations known to exist in the Inner Sphere. An example would be the Eridani Light Horse Brigade and the Northwind Highlander Brigade operating under one commander.<br />
<br />
The [[ComGuard]]s use the term Division to refer to their [[Level IV]] units, which consist of 216 combatants. In reality these units are approximately the size of two regiments, which makes them more a Brigade sized formation.<br />
<br />
==== Corps ====<br />
Used only by the SLDF, a '''Corps''' was a group of military forces that defended between 30 and 100 worlds.<ref>''The Star League'', p. 133</ref> Unlike regiments, brigades, and divisions, there was no "standard" or "typical" corps. They typically consisted of one to three BattleMech Divisions, two to seven infantry divisions, with enough [[WarShip]]s and transport JumpShips to move the entire unit. Each Star League Member State hosted between one and four Corps-sized units.<br />
<br />
==== Army ====<br />
During the [[Reunification War]], the '''Army''' replaced the Corps as the main organizational unit of the SLDF. Each Army consisted of the Corps level units hosted by the Star League Member State.<ref>''The Star League'', p. 133</ref> <br />
<br />
As units of this size became impossible due to the damage of the Succession Wars, the term fell out of common military parlance until the ComGuards reactivated it to describe their [[Level V]] units. These units, like the SLDF Corps and Armies that preceded them, covered large parts of each of the Successor States. Unlike the SLDF, a ComGuard Army is mostly an administrative term. The [[Battle of Tukayyid]] is the only time ComStar has deployed Army-sized formations in combat.<br />
<br />
==Variations==<br />
While the BattleMech organizational structure is common, there are two other unit types that engage in combat operations both in space and on the ground. <br />
<br />
===Aerospace===<br />
As mentioned earlier, aerospace units are half the size of BattleMech units (a lance has two fighters as opposed to four 'Mechs). DropShips and JumpShips are normally not grouped together, but are treated as independent support troops.<br />
<br />
; <span id="Flight">Flight</span> <br />
Typical Inner Sphere formation consisting of 2 - Aerospace Fighters, Coventional, VTOLs, WIGE type craft<ref>''Total Warefare'', p. 34 - Organization - Lance/Battalions/Platoons - Flight description.</ref><br />
<br />
; <span id="Squadron">Squadron</span> <br />
Typical Inner Sphere formation consisting of 6 units or aireborne vehicles. Consisting of 3 flights. This does not include a Command Flight for the unit's commanding officer.<br />
<br />
; <span id="Wing">[[Wing (Military Unit)|Wing]]</span> <br />
Typically Battalion size formation, consisting of 18 airborne vehicles. Not counting a Command Flight of 2 additional aerospace vehicles.<br />
<br />
; <span id="Regiment">Regiment</span> <br />
Consisting of 2 - 3 Wings of airborne vehicles, including Command Flight.<br />
<br />
===Infantry===<br />
Infantry is divided into slightly different organizational units that can be integrated into traditional BattleMech units. The structure of an infantry unit is shown below:<br />
* '''Fire team''' - consists of three to five individuals<br />
* '''Squad''' - comprised of two fire teams and a squad leader (seven to twelve individuals)<br />
* '''Platoon''' - comprised of two or more squads plus support personnel (twenty-five to fifty individuals). In the 3025 time period the standard platoon had one support weapons squad and three "line" squads.<br />
* '''Company''' - comprised of two or more platoons (seventy to over two hundred individuals)<br />
* '''Battalion''' - comprised of two to six companies (three hundred to one thousand individuals)<br />
<br />
Combat in the thirty-first and thirty-second centuries has placed far less emphasis on infantry than previous conflicts so it is unusual to see infantry units larger than a company in size. It is common for squads and platoons to support BattleMech operations and to perform general patrol and scout duties.<br />
<br />
====Battle Armor====<br />
{{seealso|Inner Sphere Battle Armor Organization}}<br />
Infantry units equipped with [[Battle Armor]] are organized differently from their conventional counterparts, due to their increased combat performance. Organized similarly to BattleMech units, Battle Armor units use the following structure.<ref>''Total Warfare'', p. 214 - "Battle Armor Organization"</ref><br />
<br />
* '''Squad''' - consists of four battle armored infantry.<br />
* '''Platoon''' - consists of three squads and support elements.<br />
* '''Company''' - consists of three platoons and support elements.<br />
* '''Battalion''' - consists of three companies and support elements.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*''[[Field Manual: Capellan Confederation]]''<br />
*''[[The Star League]]''<br />
*''[[Total Warfare]]''<br />
*''[[Field Manual: Federated Suns]]''<br />
*''[[House Davion (The Federated Suns)]]''<br />
*''[[Field Report: AFFS]]''</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Sphere_military_structure&diff=178942Talk:Inner Sphere military structure2011-04-25T20:19:45Z<p>PerkinsC: /* Number of Elements */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Article Name==<br />
This page is a more than suitable Inner Sphere counterpart to [[Clan military structure]] page, should it perhaps be renamed as such? [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 02:03, 22 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
:Sounds good to me. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:49, 23 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Number of Elements==<br />
Was just reviewing unit sizes... can anyone explain how Regiment becomes 'over 126' battlemechs when 3 Battalions (at 36 per company) is 108 battlemechs? where do the other half Battalion worth of mechs come from?? --[[User:Tempus|Tempus]] 18 May 2010<br />
:Tempus, my presumption (as I did not write that quoted line) is that it accounts for optional command lances and divisional assets (such as scouts). However, the adding Editor should have both expanded on that statement (if my hypothesis is true) and provided a citation. Feel free to question it by placing the tag '''<nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>''' after that line. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
::36 BattleMechs per Battalion + 4 Per command Lance * 3 Battalions + 4 per Command Lance = 124.. agreed, just how does "more than 126" even come close... 3x Square Battalions might cut it, but that would be 160 factoring in command lances at each level.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Anti-Personnel_Gauss_Rifle&diff=178937Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle2011-04-25T19:12:39Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{InfoBoxWeapon<br />
| name = AP Gauss Rifle<br />
| Type = [[:Category:Ballistic Weapons|Ballistic]] ([[:Category:Anti-Personnel Weapons|Anti-Infantry]])<br />
| Tech Base = [[Clan]]<br />
| Year Availability = [[3069]] [[Clan Jade Falcon|CJF]]<br />
| Year Introduced = [[3069]] [[Clan Jade Falcon|CJF]]<br />
| Availability Rating = [[Availability Rating#E|E]]<br />
| Age of War–Star League = [[Availability Rating#X|X]]<br />
| Succession Wars = [[Availability Rating#X|X]]<br />
| Clan Invasion – Present = [[Availability Rating#E|E]]<br />
| Heat = 1<br />
| Damage = 3<br />
| Minimum Range = 0<br />
| Short Range = 1-3<br />
| Medium Range = 4-6<br />
| Long Range = 7-9<br />
| Tons = 0.5<br />
| Critical Slots = 1<br />
| Ammo Per Ton = 40<br />
| Cost (unloaded) = 10,000<br />
| Ammo Cost (per ton) = 3,000<br />
| BV (1.0) = N/A<br />
| BV (2.0) = 21<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
Developed in [[3069]] by [[Clan Jade Falcon]]<ref>''TechManual'', p. 218</ref>, the '''Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle''' is a scaled-down [[Gauss Rifle]] meant for work against conventional [[infantry]]. Though the weapon began life as a [[battle armor]] weapon, it was soon adopted by heavier units throughout the [[Clans]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Models==<br />
Series-9 AP Gauss Rifle <ref>tro 3085 p.278 </ref><br />
Tau-II Anti-personnel Gauss Rifles <ref>tro 3085 p.170 </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
==Bibliography==<br />
*''[[Total Warfare]]''<br />
*''[[TechManual]]''<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Gauss Weapons (Heavy Weapons)]]</div>PerkinsChttps://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Personnel_Gauss_Rifle&diff=178936Talk:Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle2011-04-25T19:12:24Z<p>PerkinsC: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Technical Availability belongs in infobox==<br />
please look up and move to info box<br />
| Tech Rating = [[Technology Rating#(Choose One A - F)|(Choose One A - F)]]<ref> Techmanual p. 289</ref> <br />
--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)</div>PerkinsC