Sarna News: Bad 'Mechs - Icestorm

Difference between revisions of "BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs"
m
 
(205 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{WikiProject BattleMechs}}
 
−
 
 
[[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs/Archive|Archive]]<br />
 
[[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs/Archive|Archive]]<br />
 
[[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs/Archive1|Archive1]]<br />
 
[[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs/Archive1|Archive1]]<br />
−
[[BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive2|Archive2]]
+
[[BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive2|Archive2]]<br />
 +
[[BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive3|Archive3]]
 +
 
 +
== Archive, and move current discussions here. (DONE) ==
 +
 
 +
I move that the contents of this page be moved to an Archive page, so we can bring the discussion at [[:Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]] over here where it belongs, as it has expanded well beyond the question of "Deleting a category" and moved on to "How shall we organize Mech categories, and which ones should just go?"--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:03, 21 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
:I decided to Be Bold, as some of this went back to 2010.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 14:12, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Categories==
 +
Over at [[:Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]] I decided to revive the debate on whether to delete the category or remove the deletion tag.  Responses were swift and vigorous, showing that over three years later we do not have consensus on this.  Other topics relating to Mech Categories also were brought up.
 +
 
 +
'''I am doing my best to lay out the positions and arguments I have seen raised in public and in private or in a couple cases in my head.  If I forgot yours or misrepresent yours, please assume good faith and just politely correct in a comment.''' Also note that these are not necessarily my views, some of them will contradict each other.
 +
 
 +
* We have too many categories for Mechs, especially with our limited volunteer availability.
 +
* Faction Categories are generally supposed to be for who ''produces'' what.
 +
* We have Faction Categories that are about availability, like Category:Mercenary General BattleMechs (no longer used)
 +
* Omni/Standard/Industrial categories for both Clan and IS tech base are useful.
 +
* Category trees should not overlap without a very good reason.
 +
* Meta-categories should contain only other categories, not individual articles.  Example: if we are going to have [[:Category:Standard BattleMechs]] and [[:Category:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]] underneath it, the [[Akuma]] should be categorized to Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs, and ''not'' in ''both''.
 +
* BattleMech refers to all dedicated combat Mech chassis, be they "Standard" BattleMechs, OmniMechs, LAMs, QuadVees, or something we haven't seen yet. So we need Standard BattleMech to distinguish from those others.
 +
* Standard BattleMech is redundant.  BattleMechs are not OmniMechs are not QuadVees are not LAMs.  (Query, does "Standard" get used in this way in any official source, or is it a fandom/Sarna thing?)
 +
* As the storyline has advanced, the distinction between "Clan" and "Inner Sphere" is blurring, with more and more units that draw from both.  We need to decide how to handle that moving forward.
 +
* Categorizing Mechs by Tech Base is trying to outMUL the MUL.
 +
* Categorizing Mechs by Faction Production is trying to outMUL the MUL.
 +
* Categorizing Mechs by Faction Availability is trying to outMUL the MUL.
 +
* Categorizing Mechs by Tonnage is trying to outMUL the MUL.
 +
 
 +
There is one item I think we have some kind of consensus on:
 +
* We really need to have a constructive conversation, or perhaps several in parallel, about Mech Categories.  It's a mess.
 +
 
 +
I will come back with my own thoughts in separate comments.  I am organizing this as best I can, if you feel it can be done better let's have a constructive talk about that.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:00, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
I have noticed several times that you have mentioned that we are doing more than the MuL does. Sarna has never been, and pre-dates, the digital MuL. I think one of the important things about what we do here is that we provide more information than the MuL, in fact that is sort of the point. If you want Point Values, BV, and faction availability for a given era, the MuL is there foe that. If you want to know about why the thing was first built, and who built it, and why the left arm large laser is known for having "issues" on a certain production run, that is what we are for. [[User:CJKeys|CJ]] ([[User talk:CJKeys|talk]]) 17:09, 23 September 2022 (EDT)
  
−
''A long discussion about Notable pilots can be found on the [[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs/NotablePilots|Notable Pilots discussion]] page.''
+
===Standard, Omni, Industrial, Etc.===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
  
−
== Consensus : Notable Pilot Sections ==
+
I have done some research on the question of "Standard".  ''[[Total Warfare]]'' does not use this.  What it does use is not standardized, no pun intended.  "Non-OmniMechs" p. 269. "Armies of the thirty-first century field two classes of BattleMechs: those used primarily by the Inner Sphere, representing variations of and improvements on the original ’Mech technology, and the modular machines known as OmniMechs that gave the Clans their initial edge." pp. 20-21. "The word “’Mech” refers to BattleMechs/OmniMechs and IndustrialMechs (bipedal and four-legged). “’Mech” never refers to ProtoMechs." p. 20.  A brief search of recent fiction does not show "standard" used in this way.  It appears to be something born of the fandom, but for all that it seems to be widely adopted and well-understood, and there is no "official" term to replace it.  The above quotes do not portray "OmniMechs" as distinct from "BattleMechs", but rather as a variant, with the other variant not given a specific name.  So I do support using "Standard" as a way to distinguish from OmniMechs. They are both BattleMechs.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 19:16, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
−
''To save space, this has been moved to the [[BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/NotablePilots#Consensus_:_Notable_Pilot_Sections|Famous Pilots discussion page]]''. Note that discussion is still ongoing.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
== Random Battlemech? ==
+
===Faction Categories===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
  
−
In the side bar there is the random page option that navigates you to any page in the entire wiki (as far as I'm aware). Now i have no idea how, but would it be possible to add a similar function to the BattleMech Portal to randomly select a battlemech entry? Although it may not be entirely relevant nor required, I think it could make the Portal potentially more useful.
+
===Tech Base Categories===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
  
−
[[User:Mop no more|Mop no more]] 10:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
+
This overlaps with the others, but it's as good a place to put it as any.
  
−
== Variant Formatting ==
+
Copied from [[Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]]:<div style="background-color:#FFFFE0; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em">
  
−
I've seen several different formatting types for the '''Variants''' section of the Mech pages. So far I've seen boldfaced entries, italicized entries, and plain entries. I've also seen the name of the unit repeated for each variant, and see it left out. Is there a standard for this yet?
+
I would look at the idea of switching out [[:Category:BattleMechs]] to a more universal [[:Category:Mechs]], with either three tech based subcategories (BM, Omni, IM) or six subcategories and further sort them into Clan or IS.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 13:10, 21 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
</div>
  
−
'''Examples'''
+
As I look more at the problem, I do find some other categories that seem worthy of inclusion, unless someone can suggest a different way to handle it:
−
* '''BLR-1G''' BattleMaster - Text about variant.
+
* [[:Category:Clan Standard BattleMechs]]
−
* '''BLR-1G ''BattleMaster''''' -  Text about variant.
+
* [[:Category:Clan OmniMechs]]
−
* ''BLR-1G'' BattleMaster -  Text about variant.
+
* [[:Category:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]]
−
* ''BLR-1G BattleMaster'' -  Text about variant.
+
* [[:Category:Inner Sphere OmniMechs]]
−
* BLR-1G ''BattleMaster'' -  Text about variant.
+
* [[:Category:Clan IndustrialMechs]]
−
* '''BLR-1G''' -  Text about variant.
+
* [[:Category:Inner Sphere IndustrialMechs]]
−
* ''BLR-1G'' -  Text about variant.
+
* [[:Category:Mixed-tech BattleMechs]]
−
* BLR-1G  - Text about variant.
+
* [[:Category:QuadVees]]
 +
* [[:Category:Land-Air 'Mechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Primitive BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:'Mech classifications]] ''Perhaps reorganized.''
 +
* [[:Category:Individual 'Mechs]] This includes FrankenMechs.
  
−
Which of the above is the preferred format?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
+
Right up until you get to Mech Classifications and Indivdual, these are all about the Tech involved, some way in which the basic 'Mech is fundamentally not like other 'Mechs.  Some categories that would need to go somewhere if retained, but I am not as sure about where to put them:
 +
* [[:Category:Totem BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:C3 Equipped BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Melee BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Quad BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Tripod]] (This says it is for Tripod combat or industrial chassis, but the only ones are combat, and I am sorely tempted to rename it.)
 +
* [[:Category:Unarmed BattleMechs]]
 +
Most could possibly fit in 'Mech classifications, perhaps, but I am lukewarm on the idea.
  
−
:Hy, ok Scaltail talk to me no bold variants, but i think we can bold, example: '''BLR-1G''' ''BattleMaster'', is ok, this is my opinion for a eye catch, when users searche vor variants on the page, it jumps in the eye ;), hmm hmm my english.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
+
Thoughts on any of this welcomed.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 15:24, 23 June 2022 (EDT)
  
−
::But doesn't the bullet at the start of the line catch the eye?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 20:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
+
===The outMUL the MUL thread===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
  
−
:::Oh, my failure, but i am a little bit tired, i talk to you on next day, (i work in my old job, yeah, after over 1 year injurnes), see you tomorrow.Greetings --[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 20:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
+
Faction Production: the MUL does not seem to list by that, so we are doing something the MUL does not. However, borders keep changing and factories change hands, and our system does nothing to address by time period or era. I am in favor of scrapping production categories as they are currently, but this is not a strong position.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
−
::::Hello guys, sorry about mix variant listings i've been doing from RS: Unique 'Mechs. I had limited time to enter them, so i just listed them way the other variants were listed in particular articcle. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:::::The format is posted on this very project (the last item at [[BattleTechWiki:Project_BattleMechs#Guidelines]]). I see no reason why there would be ambiguity. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::::::My confusion resulted from the fact that I didn't know where to look for the guidelines. Once you listed the location, all was well.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
== OmniMech Policy ==
+
I have to disagree, when we designed the infobox, and included the manufacturers, it is because the wiki is more reflective of the Technical Readouts, which have traditionally listed manufacturer. We arent trying to emulate the mul, which we pre-date digitally, but are providing a resource more geared towards the current, and historical aspects of the mechs. [[User:CJKeys|CJ]] ([[User talk:CJKeys|talk]]) 14:25, 23 September 2022 (EDT)
  
−
I would like to propose that all OmniMech entries have a standard "Pod Space" entry either under "Technical Specification" or some other designated, consisted area. I realize this would be a lot of work, but I wanted to see what people thought. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:Sounds good to me.[[User:Onisuzume|Onisuzume]] 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::Agree to.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 21:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 
−
:::Excellent! Question for those more clever than I : How hard would it be to create a separate template for the Omnis? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 20:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 
−
::::It's a fair-to-middling amount of work to create the template, but the real workload would be converting every existing Omni over to use the new template.
 
−
::::As a counter to your proposal, couldn't you simply put the amount of Pod Space in the existing template under Armaments? For example on the [[Timber Wolf]] you might have
 
−
{{
 
−
|armament=
 
−
(27.5 tons pod space)<br>
 
−
Primary Configuration
 
−
*2x[[ER Large Laser]]s
 
−
*2x[[ER Medium Laser]]s
 
−
*1x[[Medium Pulse Laser]]
 
−
*2x[[LRM-20]]s
 
−
*2x[[Machine Gun]]s
 
−
}}
 
−
::::Just a thought.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 20:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 
  
−
== Suggestion:Transclusion of Variants ==
+
Faction Availability: The MUL does this better than we do, and we should delete any categories that are purely "who has what available to them", and I believe that strongly.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
−
Comming under the heading of "ohh lord, not another sub-page" i finally executed my first transclusion.  First you create the sections that would appear on every article in a template as i did for [[:Template:Man-Portable_Plasma_Rifle]] with <nowiki><onlyinclude></nowiki> at the top of the section and <nowiki></onlyinclude></nowiki> at the bottom.  The Current Variants Section (in the Template) would serve to point to the subpages.  Then the stats table Section of the BattleMech template would be copied to the Main page [[:Man-Portable Plasma Rifle]] with the name of the "template" for the description as follows <nowiki>{{Man-Portable Plasma Rifle}}</nowiki>. 
 
  
−
Categories that apply to all the variants would be on the main page and not part of the template.  When you create a variant sub-page you would then copy all of the main page (not the template) to the sub-page as i did with [[:Man-Portable Plasma Rifle/RPG3E]].  Categories should be Left out the the Sub Pages unless it is specifically relevant to that variant (like C3 Slave, C3i or C3 Master, or Artillery... etc).  Personally it felt like "you're telling me i was afraid of... ''this''?" but YMMV--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 
  
−
== Faction Categories pt3 ==
+
By tonnage/weight class: The MUL does this.  We do it automatically via the InfoBox, it seems.  There is some duplication, but I feel that trying to remove it would not be worth the trouble, it works fine as it is.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
  
−
I read through past Faction discussions recently, as while they may be cluttered and confused, everyone still wants to know what their favorite faction uses and produces. There in which the problem lies, Scaletail touched on it in the redux discussion, editors have added categories based on three seperate criteria, manufacturer, access, and usage. Manufacturers are the ones who produce it, doesn't matter who they sell it too (like imported cars, an American may buy a Ferrari, but it doesn't change the fact its an Italian car) only who made it. Usage is based on who uses the design in decent numbers, whether through buying from an ally or salvage or a period of time, doesn't matter how it got there, just how many. Access is the problem maker in previous discussions, because its a combination of both, as it counts factions who either field it in decent numbers or produce it, which as seen from the current status of the faction portal.
 
  
−
Access has been the cause of the divide among what to do with the Faction portal and it shows with the fact under Clan General is says that these mechs are used by the clans, where as specific clans say manufactured (which is currently wrong for most units, like CGS which I dont think have ever produced Spirits, Piranhas, or Pinions; ironically they do produce the Phantom which is produced only by them and Wolf). So my proposal is to restrict it to manufactured by certain units, whether past or present. For example, the Warhawk, initially only produced by Smoke Jaguar, which then spread to the Diamond Sharks, Fire Mandrills (which I'm guessing due to the War of Reaving their specific factory ended up in Jade Falcon hands somehow), and the Goliath Scorpions; as such all these said units should be included in the categorization, and at least mentioned when it passed on to other clans (which the article currently does a good job of). General mechs should classified only if they started to have a certain number of faction specific variants designed for it (from 4-5 faction specific variants, like the Rifleman IIC or plenty of PU designs), or widespread like the Mad Dog (Mad Dog is said to to have widespread production among the clans, I think that is a perfect general mech), so basically, any mech that has Various in its manufacturer area, should definitely be categorized as General.
+
By Tech Base: Removing this from the Wiki would reduce the functionality of the Wiki, be a lot of work, and the tech base inclusion is much wanted. Keep it, but be mindful that more Mixed-Tech stuff is coming.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
  
−
Why categorize by manufacturers over Usage though, while I do agree Usage is more valuable to players and enthusiasts alike, it is harder to define considering the mass of amount of mechs, their variants, and the changing timeline. Thus would create a massive list of mechs that were once used by units, to mechs that are currently used (which would honestly be unwieldy). Just my 2 cents on a very late discussion (which I may or may not have missed the actual resolution on). Also sorry if there are any grammatical problems or sentences that dont make sense, kinda wrote this late at night.--[[User:Quicksilver Kalasa|Quicksilver Kalasa]] 12:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
+
===These categories just need to be deleted===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
  
−
== Variant format ==
+
[[:Category:Inner Sphere General BattleMechs]], [[:Category:Clan General BattleMechs]], [[:Category:Periphery General BattleMechs]], Category:Mercenary General BattleMechs, none of these are about production, they are availability listings without reference to era or other factors.  I want to drop delete on all of them.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 19:30, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
  
−
A couple of BattleMech articles, such as ''[[Vindicator]]'' and ''[[Toyama]]'', have had their "Variants" section modified. The sections have been changed from the list format that is currently a guideline of this project to a table. While the tables are visually appealing, I prefer the list format because I do not think that the table adds anything to the article. Even the [[Policy:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] states that "Often a list is best left as a list." Thoughts? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 14:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
+
== Creator notations on Mechs ==
−
:My opinions is about the topic a list is fine but the version before the change was difficult to read. No clear structure all text was so close together that it was difficult for me to see the ending and beginning of the variant. I#'m open to your opinion--{{Unsigned|Neuling|09:06, 27 February 2011}}
 
  
−
:I'm opposed to the tables here. The variants are presented in list form, with the data provided in paragraph form. That matches well with the remainder of the article. These tables are a benefit to some of the simpler lists (such as components produced by a company or on a planet), but I think they add unnecessary complexity to data that is not formatted to fit easily in a table.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
+
Good evening, It has come to my attention that one person decided that they needed to point out that Blaine was involved with the creation of several mechs in the aftermath of everything that happened last year. It left this alone for the time being as tensions were high, and I did not want to stir the pot further. I believe though that it is time to discuss this, as it seems like a knee-jerk reaction by one person. I don't think the information is relevant on the designs as a note of any kind, as the designs have always been, mostly, presented from an in universe perspective, and this information would be better suited as part of Blaine's profile on the wiki.[[User:CJKeys|CJ]] ([[User talk:CJKeys|talk]]) 20:39, 5 June 2023 (EDT)
−
::Okay, I will restore the former versions of the variants section. I find it easier to read and to find the specific variants with the first saw. Can we draw a line to see the different variant easier, I think variant after variant is for me a mess to read.[[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 17:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
+
:I agree that the information would be better on his profile than the individual 'Mech pages. Notes about who designed what in a shared universe are more trivia than important information I feel.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 20:52, 5 June 2023 (EDT)
−
:::I ''think'' I still prefer the original version, but understand at least some find it difficult to read that way. I think I can compromise with the lines. Opinions from other members?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
+
::Disagree. I think it’s a bit of trivia that absolutely belongs with the respective 'Mechs. Btw, I know I did some entries of this kind, are you referring to those perchance? I made them long before Pardoe became a loaded issue; what prompted these entries I made was me going over old BT lore stuff that Pardoe put on his homepage. I thought it was an interesting piece of behind-the-curtain BT history. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:18, 6 June 2023 (EDT)
−
::::I too prefer the original version, but more for a philosophical/design reason: tables should be used for actual tabular data. The variant section has too much descriptive text for that to work (the tables at [[Capellan Confederation Armed Forces]] are in my opion the measuring stick: any more descriptive, and you shouldn't use a table).
+
::(Upon looking it up, okay, I see now that I actually made the edits only a few days before the CGL/Pardoe split. But I can tell you they had nothing to do with that. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:33, 6 June 2023 (EDT))
−
::::Since the issue is readability (and I don't like too many lines either), I suggest a relatively simple fix I've added to [[Shadow Hawk]]: just make the variant names bold and italic. I think it helps a lot. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 
−
:::::Hy Dirk, please take a look on this [[BattleTechWiki:Project_BattleMechs#Guidelines)]], please don't bold 'Mech varinat, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 19:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 
−
::::::Ah, I see, but it's not really clear without the discussion page. In any case, it's a display in a discussion where the other options are replacing a list with a table or adding a line after each item. I think bolding is a valid trial option. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 
−
:::::::Doneve, limited example trials for this discussion are fine, as long as they are reverted if not meeting consensus. [[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 
−
:: I'm opposed to the tables. If the width on them is too great, and my browser window isn't wide enough, it skews the format of the entire page. Also, black text on dark grey fields makes my eyeballs sad. [[User:Citizen Erased|Citizen Erased]] 02:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 
−
:::I'd like to echo Citizen's comments about the non-standard colors for the tables. I personally would prefer we only use colors other than very slight shading only to highlight the out-of-character nature of an article's section, such as Rules within unit articles.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 
−
:I kinda like the tables. If it adds something without taking something away, why not? Of course, we should keep the color scheme appropriate. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 02:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 
−
::Im with ClanWolverine101 on this, I kinda like the tables.--[[User:Quicksilver Kalasa|Quicksilver Kalasa]] 05:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 
−
:IMO the tables draw the eye too much from the primary variant info above.[[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 08:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 
−
::I'm not a huge fan of the tables, but if we're going to use them, can we make the "description" section of the table left-justified instead of centered?  There's no reason for a whole paragraph of text to be centered.  [[User:MightySchoop|&#91;&#91;Mighty Schoop!!&#93;&#93;]] 09:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 11:16, 25 October 2023

Archive
Archive1
Archive2
Archive3

Archive, and move current discussions here. (DONE)[edit]

I move that the contents of this page be moved to an Archive page, so we can bring the discussion at Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs over here where it belongs, as it has expanded well beyond the question of "Deleting a category" and moved on to "How shall we organize Mech categories, and which ones should just go?"--Talvin (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2022 (EDT)

I decided to Be Bold, as some of this went back to 2010.--Talvin (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

Categories[edit]

Over at Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs I decided to revive the debate on whether to delete the category or remove the deletion tag. Responses were swift and vigorous, showing that over three years later we do not have consensus on this. Other topics relating to Mech Categories also were brought up.

I am doing my best to lay out the positions and arguments I have seen raised in public and in private or in a couple cases in my head. If I forgot yours or misrepresent yours, please assume good faith and just politely correct in a comment. Also note that these are not necessarily my views, some of them will contradict each other.

  • We have too many categories for Mechs, especially with our limited volunteer availability.
  • Faction Categories are generally supposed to be for who produces what.
  • We have Faction Categories that are about availability, like Category:Mercenary General BattleMechs (no longer used)
  • Omni/Standard/Industrial categories for both Clan and IS tech base are useful.
  • Category trees should not overlap without a very good reason.
  • Meta-categories should contain only other categories, not individual articles. Example: if we are going to have Category:Standard BattleMechs and Category:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs underneath it, the Akuma should be categorized to Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs, and not in both.
  • BattleMech refers to all dedicated combat Mech chassis, be they "Standard" BattleMechs, OmniMechs, LAMs, QuadVees, or something we haven't seen yet. So we need Standard BattleMech to distinguish from those others.
  • Standard BattleMech is redundant. BattleMechs are not OmniMechs are not QuadVees are not LAMs. (Query, does "Standard" get used in this way in any official source, or is it a fandom/Sarna thing?)
  • As the storyline has advanced, the distinction between "Clan" and "Inner Sphere" is blurring, with more and more units that draw from both. We need to decide how to handle that moving forward.
  • Categorizing Mechs by Tech Base is trying to outMUL the MUL.
  • Categorizing Mechs by Faction Production is trying to outMUL the MUL.
  • Categorizing Mechs by Faction Availability is trying to outMUL the MUL.
  • Categorizing Mechs by Tonnage is trying to outMUL the MUL.

There is one item I think we have some kind of consensus on:

  • We really need to have a constructive conversation, or perhaps several in parallel, about Mech Categories. It's a mess.

I will come back with my own thoughts in separate comments. I am organizing this as best I can, if you feel it can be done better let's have a constructive talk about that.--Talvin (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

I have noticed several times that you have mentioned that we are doing more than the MuL does. Sarna has never been, and pre-dates, the digital MuL. I think one of the important things about what we do here is that we provide more information than the MuL, in fact that is sort of the point. If you want Point Values, BV, and faction availability for a given era, the MuL is there foe that. If you want to know about why the thing was first built, and who built it, and why the left arm large laser is known for having "issues" on a certain production run, that is what we are for. CJ (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2022 (EDT)

Standard, Omni, Industrial, Etc.[edit]

Please state your positions and suggestions here.

I have done some research on the question of "Standard". Total Warfare does not use this. What it does use is not standardized, no pun intended. "Non-OmniMechs" p. 269. "Armies of the thirty-first century field two classes of BattleMechs: those used primarily by the Inner Sphere, representing variations of and improvements on the original ’Mech technology, and the modular machines known as OmniMechs that gave the Clans their initial edge." pp. 20-21. "The word “’Mech” refers to BattleMechs/OmniMechs and IndustrialMechs (bipedal and four-legged). “’Mech” never refers to ProtoMechs." p. 20. A brief search of recent fiction does not show "standard" used in this way. It appears to be something born of the fandom, but for all that it seems to be widely adopted and well-understood, and there is no "official" term to replace it. The above quotes do not portray "OmniMechs" as distinct from "BattleMechs", but rather as a variant, with the other variant not given a specific name. So I do support using "Standard" as a way to distinguish from OmniMechs. They are both BattleMechs.--Talvin (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

Faction Categories[edit]

Please state your positions and suggestions here.

Tech Base Categories[edit]

Please state your positions and suggestions here.

This overlaps with the others, but it's as good a place to put it as any.

Copied from Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs:

I would look at the idea of switching out Category:BattleMechs to a more universal Category:Mechs, with either three tech based subcategories (BM, Omni, IM) or six subcategories and further sort them into Clan or IS.--Dmon (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2022 (EDT)

As I look more at the problem, I do find some other categories that seem worthy of inclusion, unless someone can suggest a different way to handle it:

Right up until you get to Mech Classifications and Indivdual, these are all about the Tech involved, some way in which the basic 'Mech is fundamentally not like other 'Mechs. Some categories that would need to go somewhere if retained, but I am not as sure about where to put them:

Most could possibly fit in 'Mech classifications, perhaps, but I am lukewarm on the idea.

Thoughts on any of this welcomed.--Talvin (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2022 (EDT)

The outMUL the MUL thread[edit]

Please state your positions and suggestions here.

Faction Production: the MUL does not seem to list by that, so we are doing something the MUL does not. However, borders keep changing and factories change hands, and our system does nothing to address by time period or era. I am in favor of scrapping production categories as they are currently, but this is not a strong position.--Talvin (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

I have to disagree, when we designed the infobox, and included the manufacturers, it is because the wiki is more reflective of the Technical Readouts, which have traditionally listed manufacturer. We arent trying to emulate the mul, which we pre-date digitally, but are providing a resource more geared towards the current, and historical aspects of the mechs. CJ (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2022 (EDT)


Faction Availability: The MUL does this better than we do, and we should delete any categories that are purely "who has what available to them", and I believe that strongly.--Talvin (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)


By tonnage/weight class: The MUL does this. We do it automatically via the InfoBox, it seems. There is some duplication, but I feel that trying to remove it would not be worth the trouble, it works fine as it is.--Talvin (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)


By Tech Base: Removing this from the Wiki would reduce the functionality of the Wiki, be a lot of work, and the tech base inclusion is much wanted. Keep it, but be mindful that more Mixed-Tech stuff is coming.--Talvin (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

These categories just need to be deleted[edit]

Please state your positions and suggestions here.

Category:Inner Sphere General BattleMechs, Category:Clan General BattleMechs, Category:Periphery General BattleMechs, Category:Mercenary General BattleMechs, none of these are about production, they are availability listings without reference to era or other factors. I want to drop delete on all of them.--Talvin (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

Creator notations on Mechs[edit]

Good evening, It has come to my attention that one person decided that they needed to point out that Blaine was involved with the creation of several mechs in the aftermath of everything that happened last year. It left this alone for the time being as tensions were high, and I did not want to stir the pot further. I believe though that it is time to discuss this, as it seems like a knee-jerk reaction by one person. I don't think the information is relevant on the designs as a note of any kind, as the designs have always been, mostly, presented from an in universe perspective, and this information would be better suited as part of Blaine's profile on the wiki.CJ (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2023 (EDT)

I agree that the information would be better on his profile than the individual 'Mech pages. Notes about who designed what in a shared universe are more trivia than important information I feel.--Dmon (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2023 (EDT)
Disagree. I think it’s a bit of trivia that absolutely belongs with the respective 'Mechs. Btw, I know I did some entries of this kind, are you referring to those perchance? I made them long before Pardoe became a loaded issue; what prompted these entries I made was me going over old BT lore stuff that Pardoe put on his homepage. I thought it was an interesting piece of behind-the-curtain BT history. Frabby (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2023 (EDT)
(Upon looking it up, okay, I see now that I actually made the edits only a few days before the CGL/Pardoe split. But I can tell you they had nothing to do with that. Frabby (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2023 (EDT))

Retrieved from "https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs&oldid=1010952"