Sarna News: Bad 'Mechs - Hoplite

BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive

New Mechs to be Added[edit]

  • I noticed the Mad Cat on the listing of new 'Mechs to be done. Personally I am planning on runing all the way through to the endo fo 3067 doign the Inner SPhere 'Mechs first and then doing the Clan 'Mechs. This is more personal preference but I am also waiting to see if the Clan and Inner Sphere weapons are doen the same or seperately. Also I woudl like to reference everyoen to the lists Inner Sphere Mechs and Clan Mechs as the Clan omnis, with thier two names, have been set up with links under both names in one link to make it work out a bit easier to catalogue them and to make sure the naming conventions are roughly standardized. Also I want to see abotu getting the weapons set up as well as the clans and inner sphere have ER Medium Lasers and if we can set up one article with information for both versions and an infobox for the clan and Inner SPhere versions it woudl be great. Thank you.--CJKeys 22:49, 16 November 2006 (CST)
Yeah, you're right about the weapons. Personally, unless someone takes the weapons project and runs with it, I don't see myself doing anything before Tech Manual comes out. I'll be getting my mitts on it as soon as it does become available, but I'm hoping to glean some inspiration for it. But...yeah...we do need to move on that, so that 'Mechs become more valuable a resource. --Revanche (admin) 22:54, 16 November 2006 (CST)
If we want to do the Clan machines someone has got to do it. I will start runing through and doing those this weekendas I have finished up the assaults for 3055 and I will make drafts for the 3055 solaris machines while Im doing that as well and hopefully can post all the solaris machines in 1 batch.--CJKeys 23:13, 16 November 2006 (CST)
Ah, sorry if I was throwing a spanner in the works by adding the Mad Cat to the list; I wasn't aware you were doing them in batches. While I'm not overly fussed about the Mad Cat, it is relatively infamous… sort of like the Clans' poster boy. Xoid 05:38, 17 November 2006 (CST)
I know, its no big deal. I will get to it when I do, which at this rate wont be too long as Im done with the 3055 assault 'Mechs. I may wait on the Solaris ones and go straight into TRO 3058 as I need to get the new mappack solaris to really nwo what im talkign abotu on some of the solaris equipment. I am hoping to have more info on the 'Mech by the time I get to it instead of all the manufacturing information being listed as unkown as I believe there is supposed to be a 3050U in the works. So I am also kind of stalling for time.--CJKeys 06:54, 17 November 2006 (CST)

Articles: base model only or all variants?[edit]

  • First, should we aim (not start out) having an article for each 'Mech type and variant? What I mean is, while each article also includes a very brief write-up of each variant, the link within that write-up takes you to that variant's article. Pro: specific infobox/article (and pic, for the Phoenix units) for each 'Mech. I'm also thinking there's no reason not to post the HeavyMetal record sheets, if we do this. Con: a lot more articles to write. --Revanche 14:19, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
    • On this subject I would have to say that there are some major pros and cons. I know that writing up the initial 'Mech articles themselves vary in thier degree of difficulty due to the fact that the 'Mechs sometimes have one or two varaints and other times they have ten or twelve varaints. I have mentioned before that I began witht he writing style used for military vehicles on wiki. In that format unles there is a major difference, like say between the Blackjack BattleMech and Blackjack OmniMech, the variation of the basic design gets a small blurb describing the changes and the article moves on. Either way I can live with but I will say that simply doing the base models along with varaint info alone can be very time intensive, especialy on the older 'Mechs with tons of variants. Anyway. I just thought I woudl share my thoughts with you on this subject. --CJKeys 09:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Well, since there's the only the two of us on this Project, and after reading what you had to say about the numbers of variants involved, I feel inspired to table this. When most/all of BattleTechs base-model 'Mechs have been written, then the Project, with all of its members, can re-consider it. Agree? --Revanche 10:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
        • In the later stages, once we have all the base models done I can see us doing a page for every varaint. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
          • I was planning on using the mech data HTMLs I previously generated on to create articles for each variant. I like the pages such as Assassin how they are now -- in addition to those, I would be auto-generating articles such as ASN-23 Assassin. Nicjansma 00:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Consensus has us tabling this until the Project has hit the Base Model Articles milestone. Thanks. --Revanche 00:24, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Separate Articles Based on Universe?[edit]

  • Second issue: should there be some category difference between the gaming universes? That is, should there be CBT 'Mechs, MWDA 'Mechs, Game 'Mech categories? Some units cross between 'verses. --Revanche 14:19, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
    • There shouldnt be a difference. Allready sevral of the 'Mechs I have written up have varaints listed from Record Sheets: Mechwarrior Dark Age. Unfortunately with many of the newer 'Mechs in MWDA, because of the roster card system, we do not in many cases have information as to what varaint is the baseline chassis which can make knowing what is and isn't a varaint somewhat hard. Eventually CBT and MWDA will have to catch up and when they do we will have tons of information, Until that point though information is limited. I could see some kind of stub like article that covers the basics about the design but to do an infobox on the MWDA units, unless they were in RS:MWDA1, in which case there is usually enough info to tell which is the base model based on designation numbers as well as the fact that there is information from the cards providing manufacturer and fluff info. --CJKeys 09:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Okay, I understand and it makes sense. However, then, maybe we should include categories at the bottom of articles where there are MWDA/CCG/Video Game variants listed? --Revanche 10:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
        • Well as far as MWDA varaits, Most of them can be translated strignt from the MWDA source with only placement guessing if it is an existing mech with a few exceptions. As far as video game variants....Unfortunately I really never looked too har at the varaints in the games except to find flaws to fix while playing and some of them use such an abstract system, such as Mechcommander 2, to be nearly impossible to translate into the format of already existing TRO style info without being extremely vague. As far as CCG variants I wasnt aware that there were any variants unique to the CCG though there may have been and I am just unaware of thier existance. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
          • But isn't it true that only some of the CBT base models are represented in the other 'verses? If so, we could add categories, like Category:MWDA 'Mechs and Category:CCG 'Mechs to each of the base models where a variant is represented. --Revanche 00:26, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Cost Included?[edit]

  • I'd like to add the Cost summary for the base model to the InfoBox (thining in the Production Information part). How do you feel about that? And, if for it, should we also add it for the variants, after the BV? --Revanche 15:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
    • Cost woudl be cool both in the base model box and the varaits. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Consensus has Cost as a new table to be added to the BattleMech InfoBox. --Revanche 00:27, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

TRO in HTML form[edit]

  • We nearly easily have the capbility of adding in the TRO information, as printed out by HMP. Since BTW is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all things BattleTech, I think we should include it. However, I say that with caveats: a) I don't think we should do it now, but after a majority of articles have been completed, b) 'they should only have been added for 'Mechs that have been public a year (significant grace period) abd c), the conversion from HTML to Wiki is not perfect. Each table within the TRO would require some formatting. I feel this is perfectly acceptable,, since Rick jumped thru so many hoops to get HMPro, with its HTML export feature, approved. (I'd draw the line at the fluff, as we're re-writing it already and I like how its being done.) So, is this (the HMP TROs) something we should add to the Scope of the Project? --Revanche 15:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
    • In the later stanges, maybe when we start to go to making a page for each variant?? --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Ok, I see what you're saying. When we move past the initial milestone, we'll add meat to each new article by breaking out the variants and adding the TROs. Good idea. One-stop combined milestone. --Revanche 00:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Omnis in the title[edit]

  • Good catch with the omnis (Firestarter, Blackjack), CJKeys. We don't need those ambiguations. Question for you: should we put the term Omni in paranthesis in the title, like Guardian (Conventional Fighter) is handled? --Revanche 09:03, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
    • Either way works for me. Personally I would be incleaned to leave it as is but just let me know how you think it would best work. I know the only time it really becomes an issue is when you have an omni and a standard 'Mech of the same name. Kinda liek the planet/MEch with the same name issue that first cropped up when I ported my stuff over from battletech wikia.--CJKeys 22:25, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Yeah, I can see your point. I would say leave regular BMs as their name, but omnis that have regular BM counterparts would have (Omni) after their name. (Also, we should add "Category:Omni" to them also.) --Revanche (admin) 00:40, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

BattleMech Portal[edit]

(transferred to the BattleMech Portal discussion page)

Reference Section Ordering[edit]

  • I really should have brought this up here first, since it is a team project, but I've started re-ordering the references, from the current state of chronological to alphabetical. My reasoning is that it is not clear to the casual (non-Project BattleMech member) Editor if the chronological is by book publishing or era and ordering by alphabetical seems natural to me. I hope that's not a problem with you, CJ, but if it is let me know and we'll discuss. I'm not asking you to go back to the established articles to do this, either, as I'm hitting them as I add in the TRO references from my current book project. --Revanche (admin) 12:24, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
    • I noticed you were doing that and since have made changes to the way I order my references so that they match. Thanks for the heads up on that though. --CJKeys 21:44, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Great and thanks. We work well together. Now, just to get some more people on baord! --Revanche (admin) 23:01, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

Done So far and future projects[edit]

  • I have completed both Technical Readout 3025 and Technical Readout 2750. At this point I will start writing up thge drafts in notepad for the 3050 'Mechs that way I will be able to add any tags that wil be added for the BattleMech Portal project when I put them into the Wiki.--CJKeys 15:40, 2 November 2006 (CST)
    • Finished TRO 3050 Lights, Mediums, and heavies. Only Assaults left. --CJKeys 16:22, 3 November 2006 (CST)
      • TRO 3050 is done--CJKeys 03:06, 4 November 2006 (CST)
        • Wow, that is pretty fast! I'm not going to be very productive today (if at all), but I anticipate doing some tomorrow. I still haven't heard from Nic on my portal question, but we can rpoceed without having columns. I just really need to figure out how to build the portal. --Revanche (admin) 10:58, 4 November 2006 (CST)
          • About Halfway done with 3055--CJKeys 21:31, 7 November 2006 (CST)
            • 55 Mediums done and workign on Heavies now. --CJKeys 23:40, 8 November 2006 (CST)
              • Finished 3055 heavies, switched to 3055u images as they are far superior and dont "phoenix" the 'Mechs--CJKeys 23:21, 13 November 2006 (CST)
  • On 3058, I have done a few of them. I am runign through 3058U and then will come back and sweeup up the phoenixed 'Mechs left fromt he original 3058. I also wanted to let you guys know that I wil be waiting until I have Map Pack Solaris (may be till around or right after christmas) until I touch the Solaris 'Mechs because some of the equipment I have a general idea abotu that is in that book but I dont want to put anything down as rock solid until I am able to see exactly how all the S7 toys work.--CJKeys 09:07, 21 November 2006 (CST)
Understood. I also wanted to let you know Xoid completed his creation of InfoBoxWeapon2 , for use with two differing tech levels. I haven't built a help page yet, but he's set it up for code-grabbing (and you don't need the help pages, anyway). --Revanche (admin) 11:02, 21 November 2006 (CST)
Not strictly true. At least reading the two notes can save a lot of work for someone who is manually editing those things. There's also some minor functionality there so users without the TRO can at least start an article (namely the noimg parameter can be set), but I digress. On a related note; something I just thought of… did you reload the cache when you updated MediaWiki:Common.css? Hmm. I just did yet the lil' bars are still there. I'll do a diff. comp. um 'later'. Most likely in around 12 or so hours when I drag my sorry carcass out of bed. Feel free to move that link into the page, much like Uncyc or Wikipedia has, it's a huge time saver in my experience. Adding an easy URL to check the validity of the CSS wouldn't hurt as well. --Xoid 11:14, 21 November 2006 (CST)
Errr, no I didn't (never crossed my mind). I did it two days ago for the sidebar update when I had problems seeing the change, but I really need to create a link on my userpage with the url needed to purge. BTW, when i just clicked on your link (at work), I got a Open With window dialogue on my screen, asking with which program did I want to open it. The cache purge directions I saw at Mediawikia (or Wikipedia) was a URL. What does your's do? --Revanche (admin) 11:30, 21 November 2006 (CST)
To be honest? I don't know exactly what it does. I know it purges the cache for the CSS, but I'm unaware of how it does it. I had similar problems earlier while trying the link in IE7. I know it works in Firefox, but the problem in IE7 might just have been the same intermittent problem I've had to deal with all year (being asked if I want to "download" something when I clearly did not try to at all).
I think there are differences between how the CSS is cached and how a page is, meaning that the regular method of purging page e.g.,, won't work. I know that it's worked out like that in practice for me. --Xoid 12:11, 21 November 2006 (CST)
Roger that. I'll try it from home and see what works. --Revanche (admin) 13:31, 21 November 2006 (CST)


Linky. This particular one says that it's "custom", but I distinctly remember it from Crescent Hawks Inception. I did a little digging, and it was apparently one of the first designs, first included in the one of the original boxed sets. The original specs. didn't even include internal structure! (This would've been before I was even born, now that I think about it.)

Considering the fact that it can't be considered a 'real' BattleMech without something as integral as internal structure being left out of the specs. (amongst other things), but this was still part of an official FASA product… should a page for it be made? --Xoid 02:22, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Well I know that several years back TRO Legands was put together and they have info on FASA Apocryphal, Fluff, and Abandoned 'Mechs. We may want to look into seperating the 'Mechs between Canon, Apocryphal, Video Game, and Custom as there are some 'Mechs that FASA/Fanpro would rather have brushed under the rug to never be seen again. The only thing is without very solid sources unfortunately the cedibility of the entry and the wiki overall might suffer and I dont consider TRO Legands to be the best sourcebut it does provide a jumping off point to research entries. Link (TRO Legends).--CJKeys 21:59, 20 November 2006 (CST)
I know the site you're refering to; I had poured over that place many times in years' past, looking for that amazing bit of trivia. My 2 percents of a c-bill: as a project, focus on the CBT 'verse and then (maybe) the MWDA 'verse first, and then branch out, once Project:BattleMechs has created the canon 'Mechs. However, we shouldn't suggest people /not/ work on their alter-verse 'Mechs and the Project should be prepared to categorize them if to or more entries are created for that alter-verse. --Revanche (admin) 22:42, 20 November 2006 (CST)
Another thought; when you make a subcategory, make sure you you categorise them with a leading space, like so: [[Category:Category's Name| Sub Category's Name]]. Reason being? When you have, let's say, 201 pages plus various sub categories in a single category, it'll spread it over more than one page. An unnecessary waste of the viewer's time and both the viewer's and Nic's bandwidth. For an example of this neat trick in practice, try looking at Uncyclopedia's subcategory template, and seeing "what links here". --Xoid 11:25, 21 November 2006 (CST)
I feel like I /should/ understand your concern, but am stymied by not being sure what sub-categories are. I understand the concept, but not how it is defined here. Will read up on it and take your lead. (This is gonna hurt to read a few months from now, when i realize what a novice I was.)--Revanche (admin) 11:37, 21 November 2006 (CST)
  • Category:Planets — Category (doesn't contain any [[Category:Some Category]] type WikiML in it, at all).
    • Category:TestA — Sub Category (contains one or more instances of [[Category:Some Category]] type WikiML in it).
    • Category:TestB — Sub Category (contains one or more instances of [[Category:Some Category|What To Categorise Under]] type WikiML in it).
  • Category:TestC — Category (doesn't contain any [[Category:Some Category]] type WikiML in it, at all).
  1. Check the code of both TestA and TestB. TestA is automatically categorised as "TestA". TestB, having a pipe in the category link categorises it categorises TestB as whatever is after the pipe, but before the ending ]].
  2. Click on the link to Planets. Notice how the subcategory "TestB" is listed on the first page? Try going through a few pages. You'll find the sub category TestA is buried around the "T" planets. Someone browsing through the categories would be wasting an inordinate amount of time trying to find the sub categories they were after. What I demonstrated was essentially the same trick used on the {{Verify}} template. Notice how you'll find {{Verify}} under "V" in Category:Templates? That's because of how the category code was done. [[Category:Templates|Verify]]. If we didn't do that, it would've categorised the template by it's first letter, "T".
--Xoid 01:37, 22 November 2006 (CST)
[light clicks on] AND that explains why some of those templates (in the templates category) get alphabetized under 'T' and others under their correct first letter. Okay, got, is there any easy way to look for these abnormalities, or is it really 'know how to correct it when you see it' type work? --Revanche (admin) 10:13, 22 November 2006 (CST)
Well, if you see Template:Cheese under "T", it's a sure sign that the syntax isn't being used. That's the way I spot it. Generally speaking, there's no need for the pipe syntax to be used inside the main namespace (there are possible exceptions, like if you wanted to categorise the TROs by year number instead, or something). --Xoid 11:32, 22 November 2006 (CST)
I hate how this thing keeps signing me out. *mutter grumble* --Xoid 01:38, 22 November 2006 (CST)
Does that happen at Undead, also? --Revanche (admin) 09:59, 22 November 2006 (CST)
Urban Dead, and yes it does. Since we have anonymous edits disabled over there, clicking 'save' doesn't work until you log back in. It can be a pain but at least all my edits are under my user name. --Xoid 11:32, 22 November 2006 (CST)

Xoid needs to know uh… stuff[edit]

Starslab/1 or 1/Starslab?[edit]

I've seen tons of cases where it's done Starslab/1, but I've also come across some where it's done the other way around. Which is right? --Xoid 08:23, 8 December 2006 (CST)

I would have to research it but I believe that both variations exist. Unfortunately once something is put into print in a TRO, even if its a typo, it has become canon. --CJKeys 01:01, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Triple Strength Myomers[edit]

OK, CJ brought up Triple Strength Myomers. To make the {{InfoBoxBattleMech}} look right when we finally get to a design with one, I need to know: does their effect stack with MASC? --Xoid 12:49, 8 December 2006 (CST)

No, you can only have one or the other, sorry it took so long to get back to you. --CJKeys 01:00, 19 January 2007 (CST)
Don't worry, it took quite a while before I got off my extended break. (i.e., today.) --Xoid 01:00, 24 January 2007 (CST)


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? --Scaletail 15:26, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

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 canonically (sp?) correct to use those images. CJKeys 00:47, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

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. --Scaletail 12:26, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
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. CJKeys 13:56, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
Works for me! --Scaletail 15:51, 19 May 2007 (CDT)


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 initial 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. --Scaletail 14:54, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, just come on board and welcome aboard.CJKeys 23:47, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Inner Sphere 'Mechs are Done[edit]

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. CJKeys 00:52, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Famous Pilots[edit]

How about a section--along with "description," etc.--entitled "notable pilots?" There, we could include info on famous (or infamous) MechWarriors. Scaletail 15:03, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I can agree with that. I don't want us to end up just copying the notable pilots out of the tros though. I would think pilots like Phelan Kell, Jamie Wolf, Victor Stiener Davion, etc. Those who are main storyline characters who are big wigs and would be known throughout the Inner Sphere, not just someone that is featured in a book and pilots a Wraith if you know what I mean. CJKeys 22:45, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
I definitely would not want to just copy the featured pilots out of the Upgrade 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. 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. 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. --Scaletail 18:51, 2 April 2008 (CDT)
I do like the idea of notable pilots. I also believe they should be either extremely well known (ie Bounty Hunter, Kai Allard-Liao) or they should be the movers and shakers of the universe who 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 in the novel, but they might not be more than an average pilot in not so average circumstances in respect to being a 'MechWarrior. I also would like to see the pilots get only a couple of sentences instead of a paragraph, as the reason they are notable should be found in the bulk of their own article, not within the BattleMechs article.CJ 23:34, 3 April 2008 (CDT)
I've recently begun taking this up myself. I've been careful not to go too far in designating 'notable pilots'. They must be 'famous' and they must be identified with the mech. Sun-Tzu Liao is a good rule of thumb. He's a major character in about 20 novels; we see him use a mech maybe twice. ClanWolverine101

Other Technical Information[edit]

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 ten were double-strength. This is just one example of information that might be nice to add. Just my $0.02. :) Bdevoe 08:07, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

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 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. Scaletail 10:18, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
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. CJKeys 00:59, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
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. :) Bdevoe 11:24, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
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. Scaletail 16:40, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
*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? Bdevoe 19:55, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Change format?[edit]

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):

  • 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. Frabby 02:48, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

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. Scaletail 08:24, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
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 brief description is provided to them under the variants 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 haven't been completed yet and once they are completed they will have their own articles. The listing of variants should be done alphanumerically as this is the simplest and most encyclopedic way of doing this for reference. Additionally, if you look at the faction list maintained by Peter Lacasse, there are some variants 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 or less proliferated greatly in one house or another, and have some numbers outside of their home state, including some designs that used to be exclusively old SLDF/Comstar and the special rules for designs were never canon rules. The only thing that some 'Mechs have special is that they can flip arms without lower arm actuators in both arms, which may be notable but isn't 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 don't know much more than what the technical readout tells us. CJKeys 00:40, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Variant Pages?[edit]

The base variant of the design changes with each TRO that the family of designs appears in, also the Factories will often only produce one or two variants of a design, yes each variant should only be covered in broad strokes as the core variant is covered now, but would it be acceptable/ desireable to paraphrase the fluff in the TRO (or copy what is in the core page for each family of designs) and have the bare minimum specs for the variant, then the manufacturing pages could link to the specific variant that the factory manufactures. --Cameron 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit in splitting up the variants from the main article. I would be dead set against copying the fluff, because changes made to one variant would not be reflected in the articles of the others without duplicating the work.
If your only concern is linking to the specific variant, then know that that is possible within the format we have adopted. Each variant would have to be set up to be linked to, but it is not necessary to create new articles, or even new sections, to accomplish that. --Scaletail 01:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Its more the side bar that I am concerned with... Is it possible to put multiple info boxes on a page? Humm, I guess if you can do multiple tables then you can do multiple info boxes... but if possible, would the info boxes be side by side, or would they be a long line of them multiple screens long?--Cameron 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
with the Include only tag/wiki transclusion it is possible to have the Fluff section edited in only the main page. However, there are variants with their own fluff... like each TRO that features the same 'Mech name appears to have a different variant highlighted and sometimes limited fluff to go with it. So the variants from TRO 3025 would share the fluff from the main 3025 variant, but the generational improvement of that variant in 3050 would use the transcluded fluff from the 3050 variant... --Cameron 13:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, are you talking about an article for each variant, or an article for each variant that has a full TRO writeup? --Scaletail 23:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
At minimum, An article for each variant that has bonifide record sheets with the fluff transcluded from the main page for the design. At Maximum, an article for each variant that has bonifide recordsheets transcluded from the TRO variant (this would work well with TRO's linking to the era main page, and Variants would be subpages of the TRO variant of its era. Some others could feel compelled to do Family Variants, like the different life statges of the Marik Variants... (not my area of interest...)--Cameron 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
He could make a sub-page off the original article, in which the subpage has the infobox with the information he wants to display. Wikipedia discourages sub-pages, but I think it would be preferable to having multiple articles for variants (in which the core article would be lost amongst the numbers of variants). My initial concept is that the subpage would be linked to from the main article's ==variants== section. That way, if someone did come directly too a variant subpage for some reason, it would be clear it was a variant offshoot of a main article.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll come back to the same argument I've had since this discussion began. Why? Why is it necessary to create a new article for every individual variant of every 'Mech? What benefit is derived from using this format? The vast majority of variants do not have enough information to warrant their own article. While there is a lot more information on, say, the 3050 upgrades than on a variant in TRO:3060, there is still so much common information that it makes sense to keep it all together. In essence, you're arguing that the M-16 used in Vietnam should have a separate article from the M-16 used in Iraq. They're both weapons of war that evolved over time (though one's real, the other is fictional) and operate differently than similar models thirty years prior. Frankly, I like having all the information together, rather than fragmenting it among a dozen different articles. --Scaletail 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Scaletail. It better keep all the information for the same design together in one page instead of having them scattered to the four winds. There designs that branched off from original designs such as Marauder II & IIC. Those are not variants but new versions of the original design. Unless its radical, that completely differient from the original. It all should be in same article. -- Wrangler 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Scaletail, I find your use of the M-16 analogy is germaine, and I think that is how the issue would be settled on Wikipedia. However, I think what Cameron is addressing is the intent to include all information that we provide in the infoboxes for each variant, with the posed question of how best to do so. Up until now, I felt having a sub-page with its sparse info was far better than having a huge main article with repeating infoboxes running down the right length. However, I think I may have a compromise: an abbreviated infobox that cuts out the general data that applies to all of a variant and the picture, and only lists the data that would be modified (weapons, BV2, cost, release date, etc.). You'll still have a column of infoboxes, but at least all of the displayed data would be relevant. (I say this as a non-P:BM member, and if the consensus is to leave the articles as they are, so be it. However, any sea-changes should be considered in light of similar other projects.)
Cameron, it would be helpful for you to weigh back in here with any comments you may have. I have no bone to pick one way or the other, but seek consistency and simplicity throughout the BTW project.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Project Units?[edit]

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. --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.) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:10, 21 December 2007 (CST)

TRO 3039 Variants[edit]

I searched for two 'Mech variants(COM-1D Commando & FS9-K Firestarter)and both are missing, both appeared for the first time in the TRO3039. Are the new 'Mechs/variants from the TRO3039 not yet entered?--BigDuke66 13:44, 15 June 2009 (PDT)

If they're in 3039, then they should be in the article. Feel free to update the article accordingly. Good catch. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:17, 15 June 2009 (PDT)

New Category?[edit]

Do we have a separate category tag for BattleMechs and variants exclusively produced for Royal BattleMech Regiments, like the EMP-6A Emperor or the MAD-1R Marauder? Thanks--S.gage 21:22 (EDT) 12 August 2009

No. --Scaletail 00:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

C3i Mechs[edit]

Question : Should all C3i Mechs be assumed to be either WoB or Comstar? They are the only groups known to use it, IIRC. I ask because I was thinking of going through the C3i category and distribute them accordingly (sometimes both Comstar and WoB). ClanWolverine101

Armor Tonnages[edit]

Revanche suggeste that I drop this idea here, so here goes.
Basically, i'd like to add the tonnage of a mechs armor to the infobox. For example, with an Atlas, the armor section of the info box would say "Armor: 19 tons of duralex heavy special". Unfortunatly I only have the 3050/3055 TRO's so I would need a fair bit of help to get all the mechs completed. If anyone thinks it's worth it and can help out with it, it would be much appreciated. Mop no more 01:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your idea, but I would point out that the infoboxes don't cover the variants, just the originals. So with the Atlas, you'd be looking at whatever they were using in the 3025 TRO. (Which was probably still duralex heavy special.) Also : note the huge difference in armor value if you use a variation of Ferro-Fibrous. ClanWolverine101
That's not really my point. My idea is simply to add whatever tonnage of armour the mech carries, to the infobox. Variants could then easily say ".... Drops two tons of armour" or say that the variant now mounts ferro-fibrous. I'm not focusing so much on the actual point value being added, just the tonnage. It is considerably easier to work out the point value then when compared to having no tonnage mentioned at all.
Does that make sense? Mop no more 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I'm all for adding more game info to the infoboxes. ClanWolverine101
Great. In that case, I'll Try it out on the Atlas and unless i get a negative response within a few days, I'll start adding it to the 3050/3055 mechs that i can.— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Mop no more (talkcontribs) 02:36, 9 March 2010 .
Ok, I have started adding the tonnage of armor to the mechs infobox's seeing as i've recieved no negative feedback. If anyone can help, please help by all means. this could take quite a while on my own... Mop no more 07:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the late response. I was taking a break and noticed your edits before this discussion. I don't like the idea of changing this, primarily because we're trying to keep to the look of the TROs in the InfoBox and this is a deviation from that. In many cases, the information is already given in the body of the article.
I would also like to address something else you have said, though it doesn't directly impact this discussion. We have wanted to avoid people being able to create record sheets based upon the information contained in these articles, especially with regards to a few aspects of every design, such as the "point value" of the armor. Some aspects of the 'Mech articles are written deliberately vague, e.g. "as much armor as it's weight can hold", rather than giving a specific number. Most articles also don't list the number of heat sinks for a similar reason. In essence, this is because this website is on a relatively shaky legal ground and we'd like to avoid giving anybody official a reason to care enough to shut us down. --Scaletail 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I see your point there. I'll go and change back the articles I've already done then if they haven't already been fixed by someone else. Thanks for letting me know in time, i was about to finish off both of the TRO's that i own this weekend. — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Mop no more (talkcontribs) on 19 March 2010.