BattleTechWiki talk:Project Spacecraft

Here to help[edit]

Morning, Peregry: let me know what areas you want me to assist you on. Think of me as your guide to the technical aspects of getting things to work here and get the project going. The better you describe the intent or the problem, they better I can assist. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, right now I'm still gathering thoughts on stuff. Random aside: should this talk page be tied to the Project page? --Peregry 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it should. I'll fix it. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
On another matter, you might want to finish firming up the project page, so it appears to be ready with the tools needed. For example, you still have a lot of redlinks on the project page. Sometimes, as the project lead -especially at the beginning- you don't wait for consensus, you just do it. I'd be happy to build the tags for you, but I'd like you to provide a project icon (such as used by Template:WikiProject Biographies.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I got the tags built. I'm working on the project icon and banner still, gotta figure out something good. I'm leaning towards a McKenna silhouette, thought I'm not sure how to add it to the tag. --Peregry 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
LOL. I was looking at it too, and can't figure out how I did it, just last summer. Once you find and upload your icon, let me know. We'll get Ebakunin to help us. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dropship Categories[edit]

Alright, so I was thinking that we need to add category tags to the various dropships. Minimally I think we should by ship type (Spheroid or Aerodyne) and by role (Assault, Aerospace Carrier, Mech Carrier, etc). I just wanted people's thoughts on which categories should be used/added for these. --Peregry 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Tech base? (Clan or Inner Sphere) --Greyhind 07:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Ack, yeah, definitely that. That's why I threw this up here, just in case I was forgetting anything obvious. --Peregry 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unifying Templates[edit]

I haven't taken a good look at the Warship and Jumpship templates, but I quite familiar with the Dropship one. One thing that I think needs to be done it unify all the entries to use the same style of entry. I am partial to how I do it (see any dropship entry from TRO 3057 to see my style of infobox entry); however, I'm open for others' opinions on the matter. --Peregry 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Warship Images[edit]

Originally posted to Cyc's talk page[edit]

I noticed that you seemed to be the one who uploaded most of the warship images. I was wondering what the logic was for labeling the TRO:3057 warships as "Clan Refit" and the TRO:2750 "Star League Era." I know that TRO:3057 seems to treat the art used in that book as what the warships always looked like. Do you know of anywhere that cites the TRO:3057 designs as "clan refit?" --Peregry 14:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually TPTB indicate both are valid art and that the 3057 images are late SLDF refits, its like the Unseen and Project Phoenix images here, same designs just reworked art. I'm digging through the CBT forums but everybody agrees its a mess. Cyc 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was looking through it from that thread you linked me and some threads linked to it. It seems there's two camps on it: those who prefer the 2750 designs and those who prefer the 3057. We should definitely try and not take sides... perhaps we should label the 2750 art as "Early Star League" and the 3057 as "Late Star League" or something instead of Clan refits (as there's art that apparently portrays ComGuard ships using the 3057 art). --Peregry 00:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Originally posted to Peregry's talk page[edit]

Still digging, but for starters [1] Cyc 00:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely an interesting read. I'm surprised people are so passionate about it. --Peregry 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Discussion/Information[edit]

I'd like to come to a consensus on how we label these. Unless there comes a statement from an official source saying which ones are suppose to be the canon images, and even then, I'd like to see the "non-canon" artwork still available--Peregry 03:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC) simply for posterity.

Individual WarShips[edit]

I recently embarked on a project to create article for every individual WarShip. I envision this being a long process and began the first part of the first phase by creating articles for the modern Kurita WarShips. Many of these vessels have a brief synopsis in the article for the WarShip class they belong to, but, given the role WarShips play in the Jihad, I don't think this is going to be sufficient to tell their stories. I've had indications from other editors who are unsure that this is the right way to go, so I'm kicking off the discussion. Your thoughts? --Scaletail 14:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In my opinion, there are too many ships we're never going to have much information on. This means we'll have a couple of hundred stub articles with nothing but the class of the ship, and maybe what faction used it. IMHO, that doesn't benefit the site. The little blurbs under the Warship class articles are more than sufficient for 98% of the Warships. ClanWolverine101 15:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with ,ClanWolverine101, There simply not enough information on majority of the Warships for each any everyone them to have its own article. This is similar situation to the Notable Pilots. If there not alot info on them person, it shouldn't be posted seperately. This similar. What little information there has been posted on Warships, i've been listed is brief mentions in the Named Ships of the Class section of the Warship articles. Warships, like the example of the Invisible Truth, which have been featured in Novels, has more information detailing the ship thats not found in normal warship profiles in TROs. If a ship has done something extensively fluff on the ship from novels. then it should get a Individual article. Thats My Two Credits. -- Wrangler 16:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
True! I put up the Invisible Truth article, and I consider it a rare exception. Maybe there are others, but not many. ClanWolverine101 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I should be able to collect info on the individual WarShips. The text will just be added to the entry for each WarShip within the existing articles. Reversing what I did in 5...4.... --Scaletail 00:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Not every ship needs a full history, but I think we should list as many of them as we can by type. Warships are not like regular units in that way and we can still have important notes if needed. There is plenty of information available Post-Jihad / War of Reaving. I'm just waiting for the moritorium to get started.--Fatebringer 13:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I added information as I stumbled across it in Jihad books, so the coverage may be a bit inconsistent. --Scaletail 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(Update, as this thread seems a bit anachronistic: Sarna BTW has meanwhile adopted the policy to create an article for each and every named spaceship, as per this Project and the BattleTechWiki:Spacecraft Portal. Frabby (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (PDT))

CSV v. CSS[edit]

I have noticed that individual ComStar WarShips are inconsistently labeled. We use both CSS and CSV (presumably ComStar Ship and Vessel, respectively). The problem is that official sources themselves use both. For the sake of consistency, I think we should pick one and stick with it. Any thoughts on which one it should be? --Scaletail 01:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add further pain, the ComStar WarShips in Twilight of the Clans used ISS. Normally I'd say we go with newest sources which would be Jihad Hot Spots: Terra, but then we still have the confusion between Clan Steel Viper's ships which also use CSV. Cyc
Some random thoughts, I suspect that designation "ISS" used in the Twilight series was a temporary rechristening for those ships to act as part of the new Star League. Why? The most likely meaning of "ISS" is "Inner Sphere Ship." I'd be inclined to say to use "CSS" as it seems the most appropriate and does not have overlap with the Viper's designation. --Peregry 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I think "CSS" would be less confusing for all. --Scaletail 19:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Naval prefixes are indeed very inconsistent in BattleTech (see article) and ambiguous, with many factions using multiple prefixes and several prefixes being used for several wildly different factions. I therefore suggest we try to avoid the issue altogether. Picking/assigning prefixes might be misunderstood to mean those BTW elected to use are somehow more "correct" than others from canon, which simply isn't the case. Frabby (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (PDT)

Spacecraft Thrust Values...[edit]

One of the things that differs between the spacecraft and vehicle infoboxes is how the movement speed is given. In most mech and vehicle articles, it's given in KPH, an actual measure of speed, rather than in Battletech movement. On spacecraft articles we give the value in game values. While the TROs for most spacecraft do not give these values, the conversion is well known as 1 point is equal to .5 g last I heard. So this brings up my first question: should we convert spacecraft velocities from game movement values to actual values?

Should we decide yes on this it is easy enough to remedy, merely time consuming, but it leads to another question, what value to use? Keep in mind, the values are not a top speed, but rather of acceleration. The simplest would be to put it in the value of a g. For the record, g is the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth: 9.8 meters per second per second. Of course, since the value of g is known, we could instead convert all the way the meters per second per second in the infobox, giving a number more similar to the values used on other entries (though in meters per second per second rather than KPH).

To use an example, a ship with a 3/5 Safe Trust/Max Trust would change to either 1.5 g /2.5 g or 14.7 m/s/s / 24.5 m/s/s.

My opinion is that converting away from the game values is probably a good idea, as it holds in line with the rest of the wiki. I think the best value to use for this is the g, due to the conversion being simplest (1 = .5 g), and the most useful from a fluff perspective as Battletech ships maintain gravity either via rotational gravity decks or by constant acceleration at, well, 1 g.

--Peregry 04:04, 7 March 2012 (PST)

Peregry, I absolutely agree with you that the articles should represent the in-universe attributes for spacecraft rather than game values. Would you please cite the source for the 1 pt = 0.5 g? I'd rather it come from a rulesbook than a PTB if we can, even if it's an outdated book.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:02, 7 March 2012 (PST)
Strategic Operations pg 36 discusses safe thrust values for crews and gives G values of safe thrust after the actual Trust point values. The G value is .5 G per thrust point. Again, on pg 63 this value is used for converting a station keeping drive from G to TP, then again on pg 76 it's used in an example. I can't find anywhere it's explicitly stated, at least in Strategic Operations, but it's definitely the accepted value. --Peregry 19:43, 29 March 2012 (PDT)
Further citation: Total Warfare pg 80 remarks that in order to hover over a planet's surface "The unit

must spend 2 Thrust Points each turn to off set gravity." If 2 Thrust points = 1 G, then 1 Thrust point = .5 G. ;) --Peregry 19:54, 29 March 2012 (PDT)

And everything that falls under this project's purview has been converted from Thrust points to g that I could find. Work was slow, what can I say? ;) --Peregry 02:06, 30 March 2012 (PDT)


The Project Spacecraft must become a overall revamp, any ideas how we handle this?.--Doneve (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2015 (PST)

Ship article names[edit]

(copied over from User:BrokenMnemonic's talk page)

Hi BM, I have decided I want to go over all ship class article and individual ship articles and make the following change: Ship class articles should be disambiguated (where necessary) by stating it is a class, e.g. move Achilles (DropShip) to Achilles (DropShip class). In turn, this will allow individual vessels of unclear type to have their type in the name (e.g. moving Alpha (Vessel) to Alpha (DropShip) to clarify that while we don't know its exact class, we do know it is a DropShip and not a JumpShip or small craft). I think this will make our life much easier and also provide for clearer article headers.

However, I dimly remember that we had this discussion in the past. Did we? Because I cannot find it. But if I didn't implement this naming scheme earlier already perhaps there were good arguments against it that I have since forgotten. So - is there any reason why I shouldn't do this? Frabby (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2015 (PDT)

Hi Frabby,
We haven't had this exact conversation, but we've had a similar one a couple of times - you've mentioned in the past wanting to have ships where we don't know the class but know the type listed with the type in brackets after the name - so the article on the WarShip FSS Alpha of unknown type would become Alpha (WarShip), but the issue was that it would lead to confusion with the articles describing the classes of ships at the moment, which for disambiguation purposes also include the ship type in the title in most cases. So, Alpha (WarShip) would look like an article about a complete class of WarShips in the same fashion as the existing articles about ships like the York (WarShip) and Leviathan (WarShip) are already about classes, rather than individual vessels.
Changing the articles about the various ship classes to specify (WarShip class) rather than simply (WarShip) would remove that problem and allow for the various individual ships to use the type term in brackets, but it does throw up a second problem: it would generate a lot of double redirects here on Sarna. Particularly when you think that I've already spread detail about WarShip conflicts around hundreds of planet articles and existing individual ship articles. BobTheZombie could end up spending the next month editing articles to remove the resulting double redirects.
I'd suggest the following counter-proposal: don't rename the class articles to use the term (DropShip class), (JumpShip class) or (WarShip class), but rather, for those individual ships where we know the type but not the class, change the content in the brackets from (Vessel) to (Individual DropShip), (Individual JumpShip) or (Individual WarShip). That would have three benefits: it would generate far fewer redirects, it would preserve the precedent of class articles being a higher level of article than individual ship articles, and it would have the content in brackets emphasise that the article is specifically about an individual ship, rather than generating potential confusion for people who've already used Sarna in the past and will already have the association between (DropShip), (WarShip) and (JumpShip) as referring to the class articles. I'd rather change what's new and being implemented/generated rather than change what's already been established for years, from a procedural viewpoint - it tends in my experience to be a cleaner process with less confusion for established readers/writers. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2015 (PDT)
I think the underlying problem is that the current article names are unclear. I like your proposal about spelling out Alpha (individual DropShip) and would adopt that.
But otherwise, I have to say I disagree with your counter-proposal. We seem to agree that there is an issue here we have to adress. And I'd like to properly adress the problem at its root - which, for me, is the ambigous naming scheme we've been using for ships. And if you believe users already have an association with the current system then that's all the more reason for me to implement the change.
This wasn't an issue initially, when individual ships were simply listed on the ship class article, but we should have seen this coming when we decided to go for individual ship articles (a move I still wholeheartedly support). In my opinion, we should implement a new scheme sooner rather than later, and at this point in time it's a bit of work but still possible. Even the double redirects aren't much of a problem because they work and will bring users to the correct page right away while we're working down the list of double redirects behind the scenes.
I don't see how the proposed change could create more redirects than the current system (I'm not proposing a name change for un-ambiguous article names such as Sovetskii Soyuz or Kwaidan, only for those who have a bracketed clarification in the name already). Finally, I understand your procedural argument but disagree with it; I believe in the long run it will be less work to implement a better system, rather than to apply the proverbial patches which may be few now but will stack up over time if the core problem isn't resolved. Frabby (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2015 (PDT)
Hi guys, I don't mean to intrude, but do we have a list or database of dropships and capital ships with their corresponding faction and class (whether known or not)? It might be easier to determine our direction if we have an overview of our current data and a roadmap of where we want to be?-Volt (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2015 (PDT)
There isn't anything quite like that, but having done a quick check, we currently have:
  • 90 articles on DropShip classes, roughly 1/4 of which have a disambiguation clarifier in brackets after the name
  • 489 articles on individual DropShips
  • 19 articles on JumpShip classes, roughly 1/5 of which have a clarifier
  • 222 articles on individual JumpShips
  • 87 articles on WarShip classes, roughly 1/3 of which have a clarifier
  • 779 articles on individual WarShips
Of the individual ship articles, I'm not sure how many have a clarifier, or how many articles we have on individual ships with no class or individual ships with no known type. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2015 (PDT)
That still looks like a manageable workload to correct. And I'd even be willing to do all that work by myself, just to have it done correctly.
As for Volt's question, personally I think sorting ships by faction is somewhere between pointless and outright misleading. Anyways, we're sorting by means of Categories here on Sarna, with the following pages/subpages structure:
Any suggestions how to improve that? It feels a bit unwieldy, but it does the trick imho and I don't see a better way. I hate articles with arbitrarily sorted lists of things that have their own article; that's what categories are for after all. Frabby (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2015 (PDT)
I like the way the individual ship categories are arranged, but then I'm biased - I created the categories. I think that, at the top level, we have to have categories for individual DropShips, JumpShips and WarShips because every ship should have at least one of those categories. I believe it makes sense to have a category for individual ships of each class, because it answers the question "how many individual ships of type X do we know about?". I like the WarShip classification category too, partly because there are a number of WarShips where we have no class but the text refers to them by classification, calling them destroyers, battleships, et al. While there are a lot of categories, it actually feels like they represent a reasonable minimum.
I'm not certain that we need a category for Space Station classes, but that could be because we don't have many space stations in play - from what I remember, there are the Snowden mining stations/habitats, recharge stations, and the two kinds of defence station (I want to say Bastion and Palisade?). With so few, I'm tempted to say that rather than a category, we should have a single article.
Why do we have seperate categories for armed and unarmed JumpShips? There are less than 20 different classes, and what is the definition of "armed"? It feels like an artificial distinction that I've evidently missed in canon. I'm also not sure why JumpShip classes fitted with Lithium-Fusion batteries need a seperate category - there isn't a corresponding category for WarShips with LF batteries, for example.
For the DropShips, I can understand having categories for Spheroid/Aerodyne, and for Civilian/Military. Other than that, I'm uncertain what categories (if any) are needed. I'm willing to be convinced that Pocket WarShip should exist as a distinct category, and possibly Assault DropShip. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2015 (PDT)
I have a few points to make here: 1) Personally, I think that it should be (Individual DropShip) for specific ones and (DropShip class) for those that are a type. Coming from someone who knows less about these ships, that makes the most sense to me at a glance. 2) I don't care what categories we have as long as they are consistent and there isn't an unweildly amount. 3) Of course I'd be willing to do the Double Redirects, as those are quick and easy to do. Wink.gif There are some sub-points to this though: a) The double redirect page is only updated every week, so that may slow things down if I don't catch things as they happen, and b) I have time now but in a little bit my schedule will be getting more hectic. The sooner we decide on what to do, the better. -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2015 (PDT)
I'll present the "category tree" here that I feel we should have. It's mostly what we already, though a quick glance over this project shows that there is an absolute mess going on with ambiguous names. I believe it boils down to retaining the structure we already have (with maybe a tweak or two, but minor things really) but a lot of renaming for clarity's sake. I take it we're all on the same page regarding the (Individual DropShip/JumpShip/WarShip) and (DropShip/JumpShip/WarShip class) clarifiers.
Bob, regarding the double redirects, you're not actually dependant on the list of double redirects. What I usually do is to find the original redirect and check the "What links here" page from the toolbox, then go ahead and edit down the linklist. This tool will also show redirect links, and I think even double redirects (not sure on the latter). It's pretty much a backward search for redirects. Frabby (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2015 (PDT)
Oh, and about the various categories: Spheroid/Aerodyne and Civilian/Military are binary options in DropShip design hardcoded into the rules. We all seem to agree it makes sense to have them. The same goes for the Small WarShip/Large WarShip distinction which is an outflow of the IO rules and thus warrants a category, imho.
I created the Category:JumpShips with LF Battery because I felt it was unusual for (civilian) JumpShips and thus noteworthy. WarShips don't have such a category, but that is because you can almost say they have one by default - the Clans routinely refitted the older designs to have one and not having a LF battery is the exception for WarShips. I could live without this category, but I don't see how it could do any harm to have it.
...which brings us to roles and factions. These categories I don't like, and would like to purge them. "Roles" is more gut feeling than anything else, and should be covered in the article text, not in a category. There are no hard rules as to what constitutes an "Assault DropShip", or if the Excalibur can be considered a 'Mech carrier as it cannot combat-drop its 'Mechs. Stuff like that. I feel the role categories are muddying the waters more than they are helpful.
The same is true for faction categories. Apparently, a lot of fellow wargamers cling to army books like bibles. Well, BattleTech doesn't have that. If something exists, sooner or later everybody and his dog will have captured one and faction availability is totally absent from the game rules. I therefore feel categorizing boardgame units by factions is between misleading and outright wrong. Plus, the MUL is already trying to cover this in an official function. No point in Sarna trying to out-MUL the MUL. Frabby (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2015 (PDT)
I agree with Frabby here. Also, I wasn't sure if the double redirects would show up on the What Links Here page, but it's worth a shot; good thinking Smiley.gif I'm ready to start when you guys are. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2015 (PDT)
I've started sifting through the categories and cleaning house. The real starting point will be when I create the BattleTechWiki:Spacecraft Portal (currently a redlink from the Project page). This will provide a list and structure of categories for classes and individual vessels, and once that framework structure is finalized we can finally start working on the individual articles. A few points have crept up already where I'm looking for input from other users, such as should we call the category for certain transport DropShips "transport" or "carrier" DropShips, as in "Troop Transport DropShip classes" vs. "Troop Carrier DropShip classes" - there is a difference here methinks. Same with 'Mechs, vehicles and aerospace fighters. More of that later. Frabby (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2015 (PDT)
I've been mulling over your statement that the Clans routinely refitted the older designs to have one, and that not having a LF battery is the exception for WarShips. I'm not convinced that's true. We now have a lot of WarShip designs from the Age of War, most of which weren't retrofitted with LF-batteries, and the Clan fleets, by and large, are still drawn from the WarShips presented originally in TRO: 2750. I just went through a sample of the WarShips we have recorded on here, by going through the articles for those WarShips beginning with an A, B or C, of which there are 19 (out of a total of 87). Of those 19, four appear to have been built with LF-batteries as standard: the Avalon, Agamemnon, Avatar and Conqueror. Three more were retrofitted with LF-batteries by the Clans as standard: the Black Lion, Cameron and Congress. The remaining twelve appear to have lacked LF batteries completely: the Aegis, Athena, Atreus, Baron, Black Lion I, Bonaventure, Bug-Eye, Carrack, Carson, Commonwealth, Concordat and Cruiser. While the Aegis surprises me a little, it's specifically stated that the Clans didn't upgrade the Carrack to include an LF-battery. While that's not the same as going through all 87 articles to check, it does rather create the argument that with less than half of the WarShips apparently mounting LF-batteries, if that's a significant enough of a design feature to merit a category for JumpShips, it probably should be for WarShips as well.
I don't see the point in tracking WarShip availability by faction, in part because that's the sort of thing that's going to constantly change. I can see the merit in having categories to list which factions designed a WarShip originally, and possibly for which factions manufactured a WarShip design, but those categories would need to be labeled specifically to avoid them lapsing back into being availability tags.BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (PDT)

Categories for ship articles[edit]

Like I wrote above, I'm trying to cook up a coherent category structure/tree for both individual spacecraft and spacecraft classes. Might as well do it right while I'm working this over. I have the following suggestions to make and request input from you all:

  • Suggest deleting the faction categories, as they are intrinsically misleading, suggesting an exclusivity that doesn't exist (and being pointless in the absence of such exclusivity). I take it BrokenMnemonic already agrees with me. Any arguments why we should keep those categories?
  • Suggest deleting the roles categories for DropShips. They, too, are not rooted in the rules but rather in purely subjective opinion, and thus serve no discernible purpose nor do they add any meaningful information. (Mind that, by contrast, WarShip classification into corvettes, destroyers, frigates, cruisers, battleships etc. is following a canonically established if arbitrary system, and should thus be kept.)
  • If roles for DropShips should be kept, then I'm not sure about some of the categories:
    • "Q-Ships" was an empty category. I'm not sure if it even applies to DropShips. Suggest dropping this (sub-)category altogether.
    • Transport DropShips is currently subdivided into Cargo, Passenger, 'Mech, Aerospace Fighter, Vehicle and Troop Transporters. 'Mech and Aerospace are referred to as "... Carrier DropShip classes" while Troop and Vehicle are referred to as "... Transport DropShip classes". (Cargo and Passenger are simply "... DropShip Classes".) There is no subcategory for battle armor carriers.
      I suggest unifying the names by switching all appellations to "Carrier", and forego "Transport" which is the summary name of the next higher category. However, there is a difference between a Troop Transport and an Infantry Carrier - the former is basically a less luxurious liner but still not a combat vessel, while the latter is the spaceship equivalent of an APC and thus a combattant. I think the latter appellation is more accurate, but am still looking for opinions on the matter.
  • Also, even if roles are kept I'd suggest deleting Category:Special Purpose DropShip classes, as it is a wholly meaningless category.

Frabby (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (PDT)

- I agree that the existing faction categories should be removed. I think there's an argument for the existence of specific categories noting the state responsible for the original design of a class and for specific categories noting those states that have manufactured ships of that class, but that would be more work (each time someone builds an established class in a new factory, the article would need a category added) so I'm reluctant to do it. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to have categories to answer questions like "which WarShips did the Terran Hegemony design?" or "which states have manufactured the Mammoth?" but I'm wary of the burden of adding that information and ensuring it's updated as new sources come out.
- As a more general point, I'm wary of the read-across to any similar categories in existence for BattleMechs and other unit types. Is the argument for removing the faction information from DropShips, JumpShips and WarShips any weaker or stronger than the argument for removing the same categories from BattleMechs, AeroSpace Fighters, etc?
- Regarding the "roles" categories, my first question is: how do you distinguish a carrier from a transport? I'd instinctively say that a Vengeance or a Leopard-CV is a fighter carrier, but does having bays for fighters automatically make a vessel class a fighter carrier? Also, what about Small Craft - should we be tracking ships that carry/transport Small Craft as Small Craft Carriers? I'm also conscious that there's a reasonable expectation on the part of Sarna readers to be able to get quick answers to questions like "so which DropShips can I carry BattleMechs in?" And I'm also conscious that the answer to that could be "anything with a cargo bay can carry BattleMechs as cargo..." If a vessel has dedicated transport bays for particular classes of ground units then I can see an argument for having a category to reflect that. I'm uncomfortable with trying to form a view on how many AeroSpace Fighters can be transported before a vessel goes from being a vessel with an organic Close Air Patrol capability for self-defence to being a fighter carrier, particularly as I think any attempt to quantify it would be us inventing a convention or rule that doesn't exist in canon. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2015 (PDT)
I hear you. That's basically my problem with the "Roles" category as well. A good example would be the Aqueduct clas which is a civilian tanker. It does, however, feature two 'Mech bays (intended for WorkMechs)s. Now you could either classify the ship as a 'Mech Carrier on grounds of having 'Mech bays, or you could dilute the category with opinion and arbitrarily decide that it is not a 'Mech Carrier, in which case you'd need to provide useable criteria to differentiate.
Bbut on the other hand I reckon it's true that many Sarna users sort of expect those categories. Myself, I prefer not having them over having arbitrary and potentially misleading categories.
Similarly, about faction categories... I just hate them. They're never really accurate, I don't quite understand what they're useful for, and ultimately this is something for the MUL, not for Sarna. Goes for spacecraft as much as for 'Mechs or any other vehicle type - I want them all to go away, personally. Until now my impression was that I'm pretty much alone with that opinion though.
Btw, what you wrote about WarShips with LF batteries above leads me to the conclusion that we should have a "WarShip classes with LF Battery" category just like for JumpShips after all. Frabby (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2015 (PDT)

Update Templates[edit]

Hey guys, still pretty new here but I noticed a lot (most?) of the Spaceship articles aren't using the full on Template:InfoBoxIndividualSpacecraft especially with regard to the in/out of service fields. I chatted with Revanche on the Discord and he said ?Nic? had a bot that could batch update the existing 2k articles to bring it inline with the Template. It'll be a slog to actually add the dates, but the research legwork has already been done in the article. Thoughts? To kick this off I already updated our first WarShip, TAS Charger. Just felt poetic. MahiMahi (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2021 (EDT)

I suspect it will mostly be relevant for WarShips, as that is the type of ship for which we normally have that data, but I agree its a good idea to push the full template out to existing articles *especially* if it can be automated. And perhaps for other templates as well - The full character InfoBox template isn't used for most existing articles. HF22 (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2021 (EDT)