Difference between revisions of "BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs"
m
 
(457 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{WikiProject BattleMechs}}
+
[[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs/Archive|Archive]]<br />
 +
[[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs/Archive1|Archive1]]<br />
 +
[[BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive2|Archive2]]<br />
 +
[[BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive3|Archive3]]
  
−
[[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs/Archive|Archive]]
+
== Archive, and move current discussions here. (DONE) ==
  
−
==Unseen==
+
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)
−
How do we feel about putting up Unseen [['Mech]] images? I personally think it's a very bad idea considering the Harmony Gold lawsuit, but these are also rare images that are impossible to find unless you have the original TROs. Comments? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:26, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
+
: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)
  
−
A little late. I have alreay scanned and put in most of the unseen images. Anyay in thier original form that is what the 'MEchs did look lie and it is still connocaly (sp?) correct to use those images. [[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 00:47, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
+
==Categories==
−
:The Project Phoenix images can be uploaded over them. That's not a major issue and should only take a couple of hours at most. Yes, I agree with you that this is what those [['Mechs]] looked like in [[3025]], but they look different in [[3067]]. Personally, I like having the Unseen images up there because it gives newcomers to the game the ability to see them and know what those of us who have been around longer are talking about. My only concern is about the legality of post those same images. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 12:26, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
+
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.  
−
::As far as I know our use of them is fair use as we are using them as examples of the 'Mechs as they were originally done and not for profit. Aditionaly there is no risk to Fanpro or InResMedia as we are not afiliated with Fanpro, InResMedia,  or with WizKids. If we need to update notes on each of the images it is not that hard and we can do that but we do not need to delete them from the pages of this project as their use here does meet the standards for fair use. [[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 13:56, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 
−
:::Works for me! --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:51, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 
  
−
==Candidates==
+
'''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.
−
Sorry to put myself into this talk, but I like to know how can I candidate myself to the Project BattleMech? I am the guy who made the inicial Vulture page, and I think I can do something useful in this project.
 
−
:Nothing special is required, just add your name to the group as indicated at the top of the page. On a related note, you can sign your talk posts by typing four tildes at the end of it. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 14:54, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
 
  
−
Yeah, just come on board and welcome aboard.[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 23:47, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
+
* 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.
  
−
==Inner Sphere Mechs are Done==
+
There is one item I think we have some kind of consensus on:
−
After working on this for around seven months I am proud to announce that all of the mainstream Inner Sphere 'Mechs that have a TRO entry are finished. I know as the game goes on this will be a continuing process but now we are oficially ahead of the curve on the Inner Sphere 'Mechs and Im sure the Clan 'MEchs wont take too long. The Solaris VII 'Mechs are a creature unto themselves and once I actually buy Map Pack Solaris VII I will start working on those as I have already scanned images for them. I would like to congratulate the whole team. Without everyone here we woudlnt have ever gotten this far. So dont be suprised if you also get this on each of your discussion pages. [[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 00:52, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
+
* We really need to have a constructive conversation, or perhaps several in parallel, about Mech Categories. It's a mess.
  
−
==Famous Pilots==
+
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)
−
How about a section--along with "description," etc.--entitled "notable pilots?" There, we could include info on famous (or infamous) MechWarriors. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:03, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 
−
:I can agree with that. I dont want us to end up just copyign the notabel pilots out of the tros though. I woudl think pilots like Phelan Kell, Jamie Wolf, Victor Stiener Davion, etc. Those who are main storyline charachters who are big wigs and woudl be known throughotu the Inner Sphere, not just someone that is featuerd n a book and pilots a wraith if you knwo what I mean. [[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 22:45, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 
−
::I definitely would not want to just copy the featured pilots out of the Uprgrade TROs. Most of them are not notable at all. I think any character that is notable enough to warrant a article devoted to them would also be worthy of being noted as a famous pilot (and I mean a real article like Peter S-D, not a one line blurb like Nonda Toolipi). I think that the 'Mechs that were used by Solaris champions can also be noted. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 08:35, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 
  
−
== Other Technical Information ==
+
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)
  
−
Hey guys. I've noticed the great work that's gone on with the 'Mech stuff, but I noticed that the more 'technical' details (like number of heat sinks, in particular) seems to be missing on the 'Mechs. Was it a conscious decision to not include that information? I noticed the same thing with the entries in the MechWikia pages as well. The reason I mention it is that while we say things like "On the ''Panther'' 10K2 variant, the heat sinks were swapped out with double-strength heat sinks...", but that doesn't tell someone how many beyond the basic 10 were double-strength. This is just one example of information that might be nice to add. Just my $0.02. :) [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]] 08:07, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
+
===Standard, Omni, Industrial, Etc.===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
  
−
:I signed on to the Project kinda late, but I believe it was never the intention to provide enough information to be able to fill in a record sheet (for that, you can go to chaosmarch.com). Rather, the project focused more on the description, aiming for a technical readout-like write-up. CJ can correct me on whatever is wrong, but that is my assumption. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 10:18, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
+
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)
  
−
::Scaletail is more less spot on. The Sarna wiki entires, and the ones I worked on previously in Mechwikia, are intended as a general TRO like description of the 'Mechs that can give the reader a good idea abotu the 'Mech. As far as sites that provide carbon copies of the record sheet info there are a few that already do that. [[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 00:59, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
+
===Faction Categories===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
  
−
:::That sounds fine and I didn't expect that an attempt would be made to provide the entire record sheet. You're right in that there are plenty of sites/applications that do that already. Maybe there's just two things I'm thinking about - weapon locations and the number of heat sinks. Some weapons replace existing limbs (like the MLaser on the ''Valkyrie'') and some systems are in addition to limbs/hands (like the PPC on the ''Panther'', although that's not "droppable"). It could simply be mentioned in the '''Armaments''' section. I do think the addition of heat sinks to the InfoBox would be nice, though. You're not providing location of the heat sinks, but it would give someone with some similarity with the game the ability to evaluate some of the variant pros/cons. Again, just my $0.02. :) [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]] 11:24, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
+
===Tech Base Categories===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
  
−
::::I understand what you're saying, and I don't see how more information can really be a bad thing. I mean, if we're going to put up images of the [[Unseen]], we can post technical data. I think descriptions like "giving the 'Mech heat problems" should give you a general idea of the heat sink status of any given design. In my opinion, if we are aiming for a description of the 'Mech, that should be sufficient as the exact number of heat sinks is not vitally important to a 'Mech compared to its weapons. For that matter, I'm not sure the exact tonnage devoted to armor is vital, but the information is provided on most designs. I guess I'm sort of ambivalent about it. If you want to do the work, I won't stand in your way, but it's quite low on my list of things to do. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 16:40, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
+
This overlaps with the others, but it's as good a place to put it as any.
  
−
::::: *laugh* Fair enough. What I propose is that we add heat sinks to the info box. We're missing a bunch of other things as well - targeting system, communication systems, etc., but I think heat sinks as a field by itself would be fine. If CJKeys agrees to that, I'll make the adjustments to the InfoBox and start adding that data. I only have the 3025 and 3050 TROs, so anything beyond the 'Mechs in those would have to be added by someone else. For 'Mechs in those TROs, though, I would commit to adding that information myself. Thoughts? [[User:Bdevoe|Bdevoe]] 19:55, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
+
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">
  
−
== Change format? ==
+
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)
−
Let me first congratulate you folks on what you have achieved here! This said, I suggest the TRO format be abandoned, or at least significantly improved, because you (we) can do better than that. To correctly catalogue all BattleMechs I suggest a template along these lines (the same could in fact be used for any vehicle, fighter or spaceship):
+
</div>
−
*Generic Chassis information
 
−
(Very general description of the type: Chassis code (e.g. WSP for all Wasp variants), date of creation, known factories/producers, "core" variant, special stuff like OmniMech, command module, difficult to maintain, etc.), history, known users and proliferation on a scale from 0 (extinct/very rare) to 5 (common), special boardgame rules pertaining to the model (like flipping arms on [[Rifleman]] or piloting penalty on the [[Javelin]]), unseen
 
−
*Variants
 
−
**sort variants by origin: official alternate model by original manufacturer, house modification, inofficial typical field modification
 
−
***For each single variant: Exact designation, rundown of tech base, configuration, known production centers, reasons for the variant/modification, who invented the variant; descriptive armament text
 
−
***Link to IIC version, if applicable (which should be treated as a different 'Mech, not a variant)
 
  
−
Also, the Chassis code (i.e. WSP for Wasp) should redirect to the BattleMech entry. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 02:48, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
+
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:
 +
* [[:Category:Clan Standard BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Clan OmniMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Inner Sphere OmniMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Clan IndustrialMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Inner Sphere IndustrialMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Mixed-tech BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:QuadVees]]
 +
* [[:Category:Land-Air 'Mechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Primitive BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:'Mech classifications]] ''Perhaps reorganized.''
 +
* [[:Category:Individual 'Mechs]] This includes FrankenMechs.
 +
 
 +
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.
 +
 
 +
Thoughts on any of this welcomed.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 15:24, 23 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===The outMUL the MUL thread===
 +
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.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:CJKeys|CJ]] ([[User talk:CJKeys|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.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===These categories just need to be deleted===
 +
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.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 19:30, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Creator notations on Mechs ==
 +
 
 +
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)
 +
: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)
 +
::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)
 +
::(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))

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"