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)