BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs

This article is within the scope of the Project BattleMechs, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of BattleMechs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Archive
Archive1
Archive2

A long discussion about Notable pilots can be found on the Notable Pilots discussion page.

Consensus : Notable Pilot Sections

To save space, this has been moved to the Famous Pilots discussion page. Note that discussion is still ongoing.--Mbear 16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Random Battlemech?

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.

Mop no more 10:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Variant Formatting

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?

Examples

• BLR-1G BattleMaster - Text about variant.
• BLR-1G BattleMaster - Text about variant.
• BLR-1G BattleMaster - Text about variant.
• BLR-1G BattleMaster - Text about variant.
• BLR-1G BattleMaster - Text about variant.
• BLR-1G - Text about variant.
• BLR-1G - Text about variant.
• BLR-1G - Text about variant.

Which of the above is the preferred format?--Mbear 19:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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.--Doneve 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't the bullet at the start of the line catch the eye?--Mbear 20:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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 --Doneve 20:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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. -- 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. --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.--Mbear 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OmniMech Policy

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. ClanWolverine101 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Onisuzume 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree to.--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? 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)
Primary Configuration

• 2xER Large Lasers
• 2xER Medium Lasers
• 1xMedium Pulse Laser
• 2xLRM-20s
• 2xMachine Guns

}}

Just a thought.--Mbear 20:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion:Transclusion of Variants

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 <onlyinclude> at the top of the section and </onlyinclude> 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 {{Man-Portable Plasma Rifle}}.

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--Cameron 01:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Faction Categories pt3

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.

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.--Quicksilver Kalasa 12:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Variant format

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 Manual of Style states that "Often a list is best left as a list." Thoughts? --Scaletail 14:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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--— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Neuling (talk • contribs) 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.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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.Neuling 17:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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).

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. 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.--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. 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. Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 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. 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.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 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. ClanWolverine101 02:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Im with ClanWolverine101 on this, I kinda like the tables.--Quicksilver Kalasa 05:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO the tables draw the eye too much from the primary variant info above.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. [[Mighty Schoop!!]] 09:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the tables. I think the list was fine. I just saw that Neuling had trouble distinguishing where one line ended and the other begain, and I'm willing to look into expanding the spacing between the lines. IMHO the borders just provide more visual clutter that I have to sort through.--Mbear 18:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think in the Manufacturing Centers and Planets sections, the tables make sense, but when i take a second look to the BattleMech section, i don't like it in 'mech arcticles.--Doneve 18:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I will redone the table changes. What do you think about a line for seperation? I will change only the look and not the entire text. Neuling 18:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really in favor of adding a line; I'd rather just add more whitespace between each line. Alternatively we could convert the variants to a definition list. This would create the bold text that Dirk Bastion suggested above and provide a clear split between each variant as Neuling suggests.--Mbear

Oh, a really good idea, can you show us a example.--Doneve 19:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me try this instead....Neuling, could you paste this into your custom CSS file? (Go to My Preferences at the top of the page, press the Skin option, then click the Custom CSS link. Copy and paste the following code into the text box, save it, and reload a Mech page. You should see each variant separated by a line and additional white space.)--Mbear 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

div#bodyContent ul li { border-top:1px solid black; margin-bottom:1em; }

Doneve, here's the sample with variants formatted as a definition list.--Mbear 19:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

VND-1AA 

The 1AA version, also known as Avenging Angel, is designed to give the 'Mech better maneuverability making it more easily capable of competing with 'Mechs like the Phoenix Hawk. In order to do this, the armor protection was reduced from nine tons to four and a half tons. The engine was then upgraded to bring the maximum speed up to 86.4 km/h, and the Avenging Angel's jumping distance has been increased by 30 meters. The weapons payload remains the same as the 1R version. BV (1.0) = 835, BV (2.0) = 966

VND-3L 

The 3L variant is a basic upgrade using recovered Star League technology. The PPC was upgraded to a Ceres Arms Warrior ER PPC and the Medium and Small Lasers have been removed in favor of a single Ceres Arms Model W Medium Pulse Laser. To handle the extra heat from the new ER PPC, the heat sinks have been upgraded to double heat sinks. BV (1.0) = 1,069, BV (2.0) = 1,105

VND-3Lr 

Extending the 3L variant even more, this version drops all the existing weaponry and replaces it with a Snub-Nose PPC, MML-5, and ER Medium Laser. BV (2.0) = ????

VND-3LD Dao 

This custom-designed model is piloted by a Capellan bounty hunter. It has been rebuilt using Clan-technology heat sinks, Ferro-Fibrous Armor, and Endo Steel. A Clan ER PPC is the primary weapon, and the 'Mech also carries a BattleMech Taser to aid in capturing targets alive. A supercharger and an actuator enhancement system add to the Vindicator's speed and accuracy. BV (2.0) = 1,814)

VND-4L 

The 4L Vindicator is a major upgrade to the design. The engine has been replaced with an extralight engine and the 'Mech's top speed is 86.4 km/h with a jumping distance of 150 meters. The 'Mech uses double heat sinks for its advanced weapons load, which includes an ER PPC and LRM-5 for striking power at long range and an ER Medium Laser and Medium Pulse Laser for short range work. Finally, the 'Mech carries a Guardian ECM Suite and is protected with nine tons of Stealth Armor, making it harder to target at range. BV (1.0) = 1,177, BV (2.0) = 1,493

VND-5L 

The 5L variant is a more basic upgrade than the 4L. The 'Mech uses a standard engine, armor, and structure. The changes and advancements come in the weapons and a different system for augmenting its movement abilities, Triple Strength Myomer. The 'Mech's new weapons include an ER PPC, two ER Medium Lasers, two Medium Pulse Lasers, a single Small Pulse Laser, and a Small Laser. This varied mix of energy weapons allows the MechWarrior piloting the 'Mech to balance their heat load to keep the Triple Strength Myomer working at its optimum efficiency. In so doing, the Vindicator can deal a fair amount of damage with its Sword. BV (1.0) = 1,104, BV (2.0) = 1,404

VND-6L 

This variant is simultaneously a cross between the 4L, 5L, and something completely new. Instead of the PPC, the 6L has a Plasma Rifle that is effective at medium range. Two ER Medium Lasers help and all three weapons are aided by a Targeting Computer. A Guardian ECM Suite is necessitated by the inclusion of Stealth Armor. Two Rocket Launcher 10s provide limited firepower, while a Sword is useful in melee combat and is made even more deadly by the Triple Strength Myomers. BV (2.0) = ???

That seems like a pretty good idea. Dirk Bastion 19:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, a good compromis.--Doneve 19:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(Unintending) As another suggestion, I'll add the full 'Mech or Variant name right after the number.

VND-1AA Avenging Angel

The 1AA version is designed to give the 'Mech better maneuverability making it more easily capable of competing with 'Mechs like the Phoenix Hawk. In order to do this, the armor protection was reduced from nine tons to four and a half tons. The engine was then upgraded to bring the maximum speed up to 86.4 km/h, and the Avenging Angel's jumping distance has been increased by 30 meters. The weapons payload remains the same as the 1R version. BV (1.0) = 835, BV (2.0) = 966

VND-3L Vindicator 

The 3L variant is a basic upgrade using recovered Star League technology. The PPC was upgraded to a Ceres Arms Warrior ER PPC and the Medium and Small Lasers have been removed in favor of a single Ceres Arms Model W Medium Pulse Laser. To handle the extra heat from the new ER PPC, the heat sinks have been upgraded to double heat sinks. BV (1.0) = 1,069, BV (2.0) = 1,105

VND-3TH Royal Vindicator 

Not actually an existing variant, but just used to display the Royal variant name.

VND-3LD "Dao" 

This custom-designed model is piloted by a Capellan bounty hunter. It has been rebuilt using Clan-technology heat sinks, Ferro-Fibrous Armor, and Endo Steel. A Clan ER PPC is the primary weapon, and the 'Mech also carries a BattleMech Taser to aid in capturing targets alive. A supercharger and an actuator enhancement system add to the Vindicator's speed and accuracy.> BV (2.0) = 1,814)

How about it? Dirk Bastion 14:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the variant name placement is an interesting idea, but I don't think it'll be an issue on most pages. Most 'Mechs don't have the "Avenging Angel" or "Dao" after them. (And the custom/unique variants like the Dao should be listed under the Custom Variants heading.) So you'd basically be typing the Mech name over and over again which seems redundant.--Mbear 17:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an aesthetic issue, mostly; for me, it just looks better to have a longer, more complete heading. For everything else, we have copy & paste. ;) Dirk Bastion 17:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I'm not really thrilled with the way it looks now, and your suggestion looks good. --Scaletail 02:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I know Im incredibly late to this party, but is there a way to create a tabular setup for units with variants; from what I gather with the manufacturer discussion involving including what factories create what variants and when they started being added to variants, I would assume this would make pages cluttered, like the example given in the discussion below or like the Marauder. Making it so the original design contains the general overview for the mech and its variants, with the variants each having their own tab to include all information about the variant in a more organized fashion as well give a better view of the variant; as some variant descriptions have me a little confused on what equipment it has, confused enough I can't create an accurate representation in a design program like SSW (which I should at least get fairly close from the descriptions).--Quicksilver Kalasa 19:05, 19 December 2011 (PST)

Variant & Factions

I will begin a discussion about to mark every variant with a little icon to see which variant is common to the CCAF or other factions. I think it is helpful. I know it is a hugh project but I think it is worth o do it. Your opinions are welcome.Neuling 14:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hy Mbear and Neuling, i know, but it was a little goal to kick up this new idea, i would to weight in, and the Consensus can started, it is a very good idead, but hmm, how we can bring up this issu to acceptance to others, i want to go to bed, and give you a new goal to next day.--Doneve 01:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary. This is already described in the text. --Scaletail 23:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In all text's, i think not?--Doneve 23:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Where such information is available, it should be included in the body of the text. If you know of 'Mech articles that are incomplete, please add the information you have. --Scaletail 00:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, and a another note comes to my to do list, thanks, but, ähm i think for a little icon image is every a place and it is a good idea to bring up the pages up to flow and it looks not so steril, this is my opinion, any thoughts.--Doneve 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Scaletail on this one. The icons do look neat, but the more images we have on the page the slower it loads.--Mbear 10:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Another fan for expansion of fluff for each variants to list details such as faction/manufacturer/weapon models, look for variant sections of the Wasp for my own efforts in this regard. Cyc 21:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

With the latest MULB the sources is provide to include the factions and manufacturer to the different varriant. The icons are not necessary but we can add like the readout for example FWL = Keystone (Irian). Neuling 05:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Neuling - I agree with others that the faction icons are not a good fit. I am more intrigued by breaking down which manufacturer produced which variant. Could you give an example of this? ClanWolverine101 14:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Manufactueres

Where can I start the issues of my thoughts. I had the problem to find at production centers of the induvidual variants for example the Stinger design. I gather all available informations about the case and think this is an good solution:

Manufacturer

• STG-3G - 2581

  Earthwerks Inc. - Keystone + Calloway VI

  Pinard Protectorates - MacLeod's Land

  Coventry Metal Works - Coventry

  Vandenberg Mechanized Industries - New Vandenberg + Illiushin

  Majesty Metals and Manufacturing - Canopus IV

  Alliance Defenders Limited - Alpheratz

• STG-3P - 3068

  Field Refit

• STG-3R - 2479

  Earthwerks Inc. - Calloway VI, Grand Base, Keystone

  Coventry Metal Works - Coventry

• STG-5M - 3052

  Earthwerks Inc. - Keystone + Calloway VI

• STG-5R - 3067

  Vandenberg Mechanized Industries - Macleod's Land

  Pinard Protectorates Limited - New Vandenberg

  Detroit Consolidated Mech Works - Detroit

• STG-5T - 3068

  Majesty Metals and Manufacturing - Canopus IV

• STG-6L - 3067

  Hellespont Industrials - Sian

  Majesty Metals and Manufacturing - Canopus IV

• STG-6S - 3068

  Coventry Metal Works - Coventry

Known manufacturing sites without further specification for variants

• Bergan Industries

  Ares

• Earthwerks Limited

  Tikonov

  Grand Base

• Hellespont Industrials

  Sian

• Earthwerks -FWL, Inc

  Keystone

Scaletail removed my work and mention that the information I provide aren't correct, that is the reason for my discussion with you other users. The introducion years are taken from the master unit list (version 0.66) which is for me canon material, because they is provide by members of the catalystlab staff. Scaletail explained also that the information at the STG-6G are not correct, but the Handbook House Steiner show clearly that only Coventry Metal Works produce the design in the Lyran Alliance. The Objective Raids Sourcebook includes also that information. I'm aware that some suggestions are not reasonable for all of you, I will discuss that with you.Neuling 16:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the concept in principle - I've long wanted to see a similar rundown of known manufacturing sites for each 'Mech. Of course, each and every bit of information here needs to be referenced, so that it can be checked and cross-checked (no idea whether you or Scaletail are correct, but that doesn't belong here anyways).

Regarding the data, I suggest sorting it by planet first, then by model (if known), and mention the manufacturing enterprise on the sidelines in brackets. Frabby 18:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The first time I saw this, I wasn't wild about it. The more I look at it and the more I think about my alternative (adding the information to the variant text), the more I see the utility in this. I'm indecisive at the moment and I'd like to read what other editors think. [Neuling, I left a message for you on your talk page.] --Scaletail 00:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is my test page for better understanding of my work: Variants + Manufacturer

Enjoy it...Neuling 20:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)