|
|
| (434 intermediate revisions by 32 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 already scanned and put in most of the unseen images. Anyway, in their original form, that is what the 'Mechs did look like, 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. Additionaly, 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 I'm 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 wouldn't have ever gotten this far. So don't 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)
| |
| − | :::So, akin to the Peder Smythe discussion: What counts as a sufficiently notable character? While I do agree that pointless nobodies from the TROs should not be included, I strongly feel that characters who do have an entry in this wiki should be crosslinked, and that anyone who features prominently in a novel, game or sourcebook deserves mention. Mind, the mention of a given pilot in the 'Mech entry should be kept as short as possible, and link to the character's entry. But I think it does in fact belong there. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:44, 2 April 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | ::::Similar to my opinion on that previous discussion, I do not think that BTW is a place for lists. Given that outcome of that discussion, I believe that our earlier notability requirement for a notable pilot needs to be tightened up, since any character can now have an article written about them. I'll agree with CJ's statement above that main characters should be included, although I would be slightly more inclusive in saying that any character who is the main character of a novel is notable enough to have a section written about them. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:51, 2 April 2008 (CDT)
| |
| − | :::::I do like the idea of notable pilots. I also believe they shoudl be either extremely well known (ie Bounty Hunter, Kai Allard-Liao) or they should be the movers and shakers of the universe whio like to run around in 'mechs (Victor S-D, Theodore Kurita). As far as personell who are key to a novel....they may be notable int he novel but they might not be more then an average pilot in not so average circumstances in respect to being a 'Mechwarrior. I also woudl like tro see the pilots get only a couple of sentances instead of a paragraph as the reason they are notable should be foudn int he bulk of thier own article, not within the BattleMechs article.[[User:CJKeys|CJ]] 23:34, 3 April 2008 (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. |
| | | | |
| − | :I fail to see how this is different that what has been done. Most BattleMech entries contain a date of production, a description of the 'Mech, and, where possible, its design history. We have made the decision not to simply copy the "famous pilots" from the TRO upgrade series, and I do plan to update some of the 'Mechs with famous pilots (like Victor Steiner-Davion in Victor and Daishi). I don't see how we could possibly do a number-based "proliferation" scale, as that info is nowhere I know of. Despite descriptions in the TRO that mention things like "this 'Mech's reactor shielding occasionally fails with no warning," there is no difference in game rules. If you want to start a House Rules article for the [[Javelin]] and indicate that you give it a +1 to piloting, that's fine with me. I also would have no objections to creating [[flippable arms]] and working that into the descriptions of 'Mechs for which that applies. The variants are currently sorted in alphanumerical order, which I believe works and see no reason to change. As for the other info on variants, as much of that as is possible is there. There is info on their armament, but there is usually no information on where these things are produced (if different). Some of that is changing, like in TRO:PP, but there's certainly no way that it can be done for every variant because the info simply does not exist. As for the IIC variants, they are all linked, but the pages for most of them have not been created yet. [[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 08:24, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | :I agree with Scaletail on this. We are not attempting to create a "Janes BattleMech Guide" but are attempting to create entries on BattleMechs that tell you enough about them so that you know about the base version of the design and you also get information on each of the variants. The IIC Mechs are seperate. A link and breif description is privided to them under the varaints section because in the end, even though the 'Mechs are different enough to be a new design, they are also a variant upon the original design so they are both a variant and a new design. They havent been completed yet and once they are completed they will have thier own articles. The listing of variants should be done alphanumericly as this is the simplist and most encyclopedic way of doing this for reference. Additionally if you look at the faction list maintained by Peter Lacasse there are some varaints that are used by multiple houses because of trade agreements and alliances such as the Concord of Kapteyn and the Fedcom as well as the period of relative peace between the Draconis Combine and Federated Commonwealth rump state. As far as special board game rules and availability the availability is hard to place as most designs have more less proliferated greatly in one house or another and have some numbers outside of thier home state including some designs that used to be exclusively old SLDF/Comstar and the special rules for designs were never conon rules. The only thing that some 'Mechs have special is that they can flip arms without lower arm actuators in both ars which may be notable but isnt a requirement. I would like to state to end my response that the current format that is used gives a great deal of information to the reader without becoming so specific as to only appeal to the technophiles within BattleTech. The generality of the format also allows for the fact that even though we get the game specs for 'Mechs and also some historical information; In many cases, especially with the designs introduced since 3060, we really dont know much more then what the technical readout tells us. [[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 00:40, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
| + | Thoughts on any of this welcomed.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 15:24, 23 June 2022 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| − | ==Faction Categories== | + | ===The outMUL the MUL thread=== |
| − | [[User:FIVE-one|FIVE-one]] asked a question that I've been kicking around for a while, so I finally decided to ask it. When categorizing 'Mechs by facion, do we want to give them all of the categories it would fall under per ''[[Combat Operations]]'', or do we want to categorize it by the producer? While I can see why ComOps is the point of origin for this, I don't think we should use it to categorize 'Mech articles. It should be classified by the producer/creator. For instance, the ''[[Eagle (BattleMech)|Eagle]]'' is produced in the FWL, but sold to the CC. Since it is usable by the CC, it is listed under CC in ComOps, but it's not a Capellan 'Mech. Anybody else have an opinion? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 21:40, 13 December 2007 (CST)
| + | Please state your positions and suggestions here. |
| − | ::Well, I think some Clan 'Mechs were listed in other Clans because many 'Mech designs are widespread throughout the Clans due to many Trials of Possession and battle salvage. Otherwise, when a foreign is present in a "foreign" Clan, it does not automaticaly mean the 'Mech is produced in this Clan.In my example (the Kodiak, a totem 'Mech), the design is only produced by Clan Ghost Bear. --[[User:FIVE-one|FIVE-one]] 03:00, 14 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :::Since I wrote the original commentary as I was getting ready for bed, allow me to clarify. There seems to be two different ways we could categorize 'Mechs:
| |
| − | :::#By all factions that have access to them (as is essentially done with the "General" categories). This means that even if a given faction does not build a design, then it may still be listed because it trades for it (or whatever) in significant enough quantities. The advantage of this is that is can be done using the Force Faction Tables listed in ''[[Combat Operations]]'' (or the web whenever the new one gets done). The downside is that 'Mechs again end up categorized all over the place, especially with 3025 'Mechs that now have all kinds of exclusive variants, which means they will end up with a dozen or more categories.
| |
| − | :::#By producing faction. This would (in my mind) essentially necessitate a bastardization of the info in ComOps with some 'Mechs being "General" (available to all factions- Clan or IS) and others "belonging" to one faction.
| |
| − | :::This is an issue that I have basically tabled because I believe the members of this project were waiting to finish all of the 'Mech articles before we decided what path to take, but I think we are sufficiently close to completion that it is something we can discuss. I prefer the second way, myself. It may (may!) be slightly more problematic in certain instances, but I think it is the more appropriate way to deal with this here. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:00, 14 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | ::::This essentially tackles what I intended to do with a section about "proliferation" in my above suggestion to improve the 'Mech templates. For a roleplayer like me, any 'Mech could show up anywhere if it can be explained by a feasible backstory. Some unusual cases are even canon: A particular Black Thorns warrior is a fugitive from a Capellan Warrior House who brought his Raven 'Mech, and vice versa a WH Hiritsu warrior rides one of three Tomahawks in the Capellan Confederation in the novel Binding Force where the history of the 'Mech is even explained in some detail. Any 'Mech design could turn up as salvage, anywhere. It comes down to the fact that no table or categoy could ever do the proliferation justice, regardless of wether they are categorized by producer, designer, or whatever. It will always be a grey area and should be noted as "proliferation" in each individual 'Mech entry. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 15:23, 14 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| | | | |
| − | :::::I see the problem with listing a 'Mech within a certain faction (solely because it served in that faction's military) as one of over-saturation. I can acknowledge that /''will''/ become a problem, if the standard is any single mention of a 'Mech type within a faction merits its inclusion as /available/ to that faction as a whole. However, like the faction lists of ComOps and the ones placed in the newer tomes, there is value in a User being able to see what unit types a faction can muster. | + | 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'd suggest a compromise somewhere in between: if the only mention of a unit type ('Mech, ASF, whatever) is that of a Hero one (i.e., the unit itself becomes a character because of its uniqueness), then it is not 'fielded' by that faction. Instead, units are only fielded by a faction if the canon suggests they are included in military formations and are not assumed to be special because of their uniqueness. Ex: Sergeant Milhouse of the ''25th Lyran Whatevers'' pilots a family 'Mech (of the ''PIB-27 Puss-In-Boots'' variety) that he brought with him when he defected from the Kuritans. However, the canon mentions the same battalion fields that 'Mech type because of a large cache found back in 2927 and they've been keeping the formation suitably supplied. In the first case by itself, the Lyrans don't field the PIB-27, so the article would't merit be categorized with the Lyrans. However, in the case of the second, the article would. In other words, if the only mention is of 'Mechs being fielded because of singular, unique reasons, they don't warrant being categorized as that faction's. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:05, 14 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| | | | |
| − | ::::::Frabby, I don't know what you intend to do with "proliferation," nor what you expect anybody else to do. Perhaps if you could give an example, or tell me where this information could be found it would help. I don't think this will be an issue if we choose to base our decision on a canon source. ComOps has a list of what factions field significant quantities of what units, so we can use that as the guide and nothing else if we would like. I agree that every faction fields at least one of almost every 'Mech in production. For example, there are ''Dragons'' all over place. I suspect that the FedSuns field a somewhat significant number of them, but it is still thought of as a Combine BattleMech, so BTW should reflect that. Similarly, any unit that is not listed under the "General" list in ComOps should be categorized by the producing faction(s) only. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 19:19, 15 December 2007 (CST)
| + | 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) |
| | | | |
| − | Having read this discussion a couple of different times, I have come up with another solution, as I dislike the current situation. I understand that people want to know generally what factions field what units in significant quantities, and it's something that I agree should be included, though I still think a numbered system is unrealistic. I also believe that trying to use categories to provide this information is simply not up to the task. The compromise would be to put this information in the body of the article. In addition to the design history and stats in the "Description" section, we can also include info about what factions field the unit (based upon the tables in ComOps and more updated info). This then allows us to condense the categories and only put 'Mechs in one faction category. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:32, 29 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | | | |
| − | == Project Units? ==
| + | 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) |
| | | | |
| − | Given that most of the BattleMech articles have been completed, I was wondering what the project's members thought about expanding the scope of it. Obviously, work will still need to be done on the 'Mech articles long after all the ones that are currently in existence have articles, but I believe that the standards created here can be applied to almost any unit. For this reason, I propose expanding Project BattleMechs into "Project Units" (the name is certainly not set in stone), under which all articles for units would fall. This would include 'Mechs, combat vehicles, aerospace fighters, JumpShips, DropShips, WarShips, ProtoMechs, and battle armor. I believe the main advantages of this would be using what has already been done on the BattleMech articles to create new unit articles without having to reinvent the wheel, as well as presenting a unified feel for all articles on units. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 11:08, 21 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| − | :I absolutely agree. You guys accomplished so much while I was deployed, it is simply amazing. Its got my support. (Guess the project would need a new user banner.) --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:10, 21 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Age of Destruction Era 'Mechs==
| + | 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 would like to create some Clan exclusives 'Mechs, that I use to fight with in Mechwarrior : Age of Destruction. However I don't have any photo from any TRO about those, seen there is no TRO speaking about those beasts, only 'Mech dossier which are given with their 'Mechs. Those contains some impressive images I might add if you allow me to do so, with a link to the original dossier .PDF on Wizkids Official Site.
| |
| − | I already have 3 entries I can create : Shrike (like Melvina Hazen's one), Gyrfalcon and Eyrie plus the Jade Hawk.
| |
| − | I can do so with other Clan exclusives like the Sun Cobra, Wulfen and Warwolf (Clan Wolf), Karhu (Clan Ghost Bear/Rasalhague Dominion), Cave Lion (Clan Nova Cat/Spirit Cats; Ocelot is already done). (I'm not sure but I think the Ghost can be added as a Clan Nova Cat one.) --[[User:FIVE-one|FIVE-one]] 14:17, 5 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| | | | |
| − | :We haven't yet decided what we want to do with with the MW:DA/AoD 'Mechs, but I think most of them can be included using the same format we have now. TPTB have hinted that a new TRO may be on the way soon(ish), so I think we will eventually have the info to fill in whatever gaps exist. I'd say go for it, and if you run into any significant problems, ask for specific help. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:23, 5 January 2008 (CST) | + | 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) |
| | | | |
| − | ::Cool, the only question I would have is how to handle the references from the dossiers. --[[User:MEC|MEC]] 17:58, 5 January 2008 (CST)
| + | ===These categories just need to be deleted=== |
| | + | Please state your positions and suggestions here. |
| | | | |
| − | :::While I don't play AoD or own anything from it, I have seen a lot of the stuff WK put up on their website. I would recommend using the title of the card ("''Jupiter'' Technical Readout card", for example) and providing a link to the .pdf on the website if its available. I see that the alphanumerical designation of the card has been used, but that's personally of no use to me, though more info cannot hurt. I'm not sure how much sense that makes, but hopefully I'm not way out in left field. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:19, 5 January 2008 (CST) | + | [[: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) |
| | | | |
| − | I propose that DA/AoD variants of 'Mechs are placed into their own section. Agree/disagree? --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:18, 14 May 2008 (CDT)
| + | == Creator notations on Mechs == |
| | | | |
| − | == Video game entries ==
| + | 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) |
| − | This has been put off, but, since the issue has come up, I believe it is time to address what to do with video-game exclusive 'Mechs and variants. I personally believe that any variants that do not have corresponding stats in CBT should be given their own section and denoted as video game-only variants. 'Mech articles on video game-exclusive designs should be clearly and prominently labeled as such. I give the floor to everybody else. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:54, 28 January 2008 (CST)
| + | ::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)) |
| − | What exactly do you mean by Video Game only, like mechs from Mektek that were modded into MW4, like the Gesu, Deimos, or the Thanatos XMT? --[[User:Quicksilver Kalasa|Quicksilver Kalasa]] 22:34, 18 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
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))
