BattleTechWiki talk:Project Technology

This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of BattleTech technology and equipment. 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.

Equipment Brands[edit]

We need to decide how we are going to handle how equipment models are listed. Certain Pages such as Fusion Engine have more space devoted to the specific models of fusion engine than is devoted to what fusion engine is. We have already begun splitting models off from the Jump jet page and I suggest we do the same with all the other pages. We need to figure out how we want to handle it the two options I see right now are:

  1. Make one page for each brand and separate it into sections for each type of equipment (eg. Pitban with a section on jump jets and a section on engines)
  2. Make separate pages for each type of equipment in a brand (eg. Pitban (Jump Jets) and Pitban (Fusion Engines))
I vote option 1 --BirdofPrey 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hm i think, when we put all infos in one Pitban page the page becomes to long, i provide to seperate the page by Pitban (Jump Jets) and Pitban (Fusion Engines), in the Pitban Fusion Engine page we must seperate XL, XXL models.--Doneve 23:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Technology, Weapons and equipment categories[edit]

I am wondering if we want technology to contain every piece of equipment for completeness or if we should just use it for general technology pages (eg. Fusion Engine, Autocannons, ECM Suite) and move specific pieces of equipment (eg. AC/5, AC,10, Guardian ECM, Angel ECM, ect.)into the weapons and equipment categories. --BirdofPrey 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As the lists for any one type of equipment can get rather long I am thinking each specific type of equipment should get its own main page, ie Medium Lasers, AC/10's, Ferro Fibrous Armor, Chassis, ect and that page would then have a link to a separate list of manufacturer types. Then those manufacturer types would have the listing of all the subtypes they mention along with the mechs they are installed in and the places those mechs are made. This way the list of manufacturers wont clutter the main page of the equipment type. I will go make such a list page to show what I mean. -- LRichardson 19:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at List of Standard Jump Jet Types. It is a long format that will include everything, but it is meant to be a sort of database of types of JJ. My concern is that the list will have as many entries as there are mech that have jets. The list is however sortable and it serves a use in that the user can click on each of the columns to find what they want. This list is in addition to the detail breakouts on the individual manufacturer pages. I might consider eliminating the model number and used in columns in these equipment lists. Thoughts? -- LRichardson 21:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It's your project, but just to give you feedback: I like your first idea, wherein the main Jump Jets article has a simple list of jump jet manufacturers (right now called 'Brands' on that list) included, which are linked to the article about the respective companies. When you click on the company name, that article lists every product they build, broken down into types. Within that 'types' list would be jump jets (ex: on the Chilton page, it lists gadgets, widgets and jump jets). In the jump jets section, it lists the models of jump jets, where they are made and maybe what 'Mech models use them. (Though, to be honest, if the 'Mech articles were set up right, they would link their jump jets to the Chilton jump jet section, and someone clicking on 'What links here' could quickly see).
Actually, I see it is more set up by brands, which can be manufactured by different companies, but my way seems a bit clearer.--Rev (talk|contribs) 23:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


I saw your conversation over on [BattleTechWiki:Administrators#New_project_for_BT_technology]]. From what I see on the template, it is working. Is there something you'd like me to check?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For one, it's shows an error message on the project page about how it belongs in the talk pages. Second since it didn't copy the 'how to use this template' stuff, I am concerned some code didn't come with. Also how do I add an icon to it like the others have?--BirdofPrey 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The Template works, but why BirdofPrey removed the tr=new parameter?.--Doneve 00:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
That's the example so people know what to type place the banner on other pages.--BirdofPrey 00:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but the tr=new parameter is a integral pice of some project pages, and talk to new involved users and sarna visitors, to review the tagged pages to help to improve and build it.--Doneve 00:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Most of those pages aren't new and should probably say tr=peer
That is interesting. The BM one doesn't, but when I copy it over to your project page, it shows the same message. Hmmmm....--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm stymied. The WP:BM one should also show it, but doesn't (unless moved to the wrong page). Somewhere, there's a template the represses that when displayed on the WP main page, but the one we're calling (I suspect) is set only for the BM. I'll think about it; maybe the answer'll come to me.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Who made the template for the Battlemechs project? maybe ask them--BirdofPrey 00:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You're getting the error message on the template that's on the project page because that's what the template is supposed to do. It checks to see if it's on an articles talk page. If not, it says to move it, because the project template is supposed to be on the talk page. Since it's on your project page as an illustration, just let it be. --Scaletail 01:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It's an interesting technical question. Why doesn't the WP:BM one also display that on its page?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not the BM template that has it. Its a template that's being called into play that allows the BM one to prevent the display. However, Scaletail's absolutely right: it doesn't matter, because in the end it is doing its job where you want it: on the talk pages.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Fixed it. It's the check talk template. --Scaletail 01:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Always the stupid things. Thanks Scaletail--BirdofPrey 01:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Back from the Undead[edit]

Ok, I'm back in the realm of the living here and able to do some pondering about the project. I am putting forth a structure that seems to build on what is already here on the BTW. Basically for any given brand name there will be a few pages associated with it. There is the main company page, the branded technology page, the manufacturing centers pages and the main technology page itself.

Some outlines:

Page: Company Profile

Manufacturing Centers
Planet A
Planet B
Planet C
Technologies Manufactured
Technology i
Type 1
Type 2
Technology ii
Technology iii
Technology iv
Products Manufactured
Battlemech 1
Battlemech 1
Vehicle 1
Vehicle 2
Aerospace Fighter 1

This page is largely the pages that already exist for the various campanies in the BTU. A company profile should only be created for a brand name when information is known about the name (such as descriptions of manufacturing centers) or the same brand name is used for multiple technology types, such as jump jets and engines. If the name is unique to a technology type, create the company page but make a redirect that leads to the technology page for that product. See the Chilton page for reference. These manufacturer pages ought include separated lists of where they have known factories, what technology types they make and a simple list of subtypes and a list of what finished products they make.

Page: Manufacturer (Planet A)

Technologies Manufactured
Technology i
Technology ii

Products Manufactured
Battlemech 1
Battlemech 2

For clarity with companies that have multiple manufacturing centers I propose that each manufacturing center be given its own page that will list the items made. This avoids really long pages for companies with multiple factories each making multiple technologies and products.

Page: Technology Manufactured

Tech i, Type 1
Tech i, Type 2

This page lists all the specific models of a particular technology type, such as found on the Chilton page.

Page: Technology Models This page should be created for all known models af a given branded technology but should simply have a redirect to the particular subsection in the main technology page. For example Chilton 360 forwards to the Chilton 360 subheading on the Chilton (Jump Jets) page. This redirect is so that a listing of Chilton 360 in a product description will forward to the most concise part of the appropriate technology page.

So, in the case of Jump Jets:

  • Rawlings does not have its own specific manufacturing centers listed in the fluff, so no pages for those.
  • There will be a number of redirect pages like Rawlings 40 which lead to the appropriate specific section of the jump jet page.
  • And lastly there will be an entry for Rawlings on both the Jump Jets and Fusion Engines pages.

What are folks thoughts on this one? Is it easy enough to follow? -- LRichardson 23:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I am very glad, you are back, no no i'm not a rapper, thanks for update the Project Technology page, iam not so the fluff writer, but help out in other thinks.--Doneve 23:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yea, I had some stuff pop up, first a minor medical crisis with a family member and then working my arse off helping a friend finish his Burning Man project. You can see the burning man project here: I can be seen in the video from Aug 25. I was finishing up installing an engine in the beast. Most of my week was spent fabricating and installing a set of flame projectors. They are successfully on the road to Burning Man now and I am back here with a serious suntan... -- LRichardson 23:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice video ;), your guys built alien technology^^, very cool.--Doneve 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
In action. Anyhow, back to business here... Lets focus on fully fleshing out Jump Jets and all the brands then retweak it so that it becomes a bit of boilerplate that we can follow on to other technologies. -- LRichardson 21:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • 16 February 2015: I'm (still) not dead yet. So... I'm back here. It's been a while. Lou Richardson

Incorrect References and misleading information in Cruise Missile articles[edit]

Hello. Offical forums for Battletech have critized the quality of the Cruise Missile 120 article. I've looked the article and it indeed have problems. Article written with information from unknown source when its reflecting on weapons background. There talk about the article about the weapons development and reflects as opinion page effectiveness of the weapon. if its from a canon source talking about these things, there needs to be reference to it, book and name. Refs need notes state exactly what is referring so someone looking at the reference on bottom the page, that there no confusing for first time users. -- Wrangler (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2012 (PST)

Looked it over, added a bit about the morale check, but seems to be up to date now.-- LRichardson 20:09, 16 February 2015 (PST)

Video Game Stats[edit]

I want to add all the stats from each of the games to all applicable weapon/BattleMech/vehicle pages, and wanted to know if I could go ahead with that; I have an (unfinished) proof-of-concept example in my sandbox for you to see what I mean. I own MCG, MC2, MW3, MW4 (every edition), and could get MWO. For the weapons, a table would be inserted after all the canonical info, and for the Mechs/vehicles, they would all be listed in the variants section with clear apocryphal tag markings. For the games that I don't own, I'm using online references and what info any of you could help give. What do you think? -BobTheZombie (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2014 (PDT)

Would it be okay to include this at the top of pages that have a "see also" section on them? The line is as follows:
This article covers the canonical tabletop version of the weapon. For the various apocryphal video game versions, see the video game section at the bottom of the page.
If there would be a better solution to this then please tell me. It is quite hard to find these pages in their current state. -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2014 (PDT)
Regarding games like MWO, where they keep adding new 'Mechs, the stats change over time, etc., I suggest that it would be better to link to the MWO Wiki BattleMech page instead. I do some work on that wiki as well and I decided I didn't have it in me to try to duplicate all of that work. --Trifler (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2014 (PDT)
Yeah, we haven't gotten to that one yet; that actually would be an option in the meantime. I believe that in the long run it would be best to have all the info here in one place (and to avoid deletion of other sites), but for the time being I have plenty of projects going on and am focusing on the older games. I worked on a (now defunct) Minecraft wiki back when the game was in beta, and I know how hard it is to keep up with an ever-updating game. Perhaps we could wait until they have mostly stopped adding new content (in how many ever years) and move some of the stuff over. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2014 (PDT)
I think a lot of the video game stats (especially those of MWO for reasons already pointed out) should possibly have a specific weapons stats page relating to each game. MW4, MC, MC2, MWO and MA all have their own entirely propriety set of stats and values that are no relation to the wider BT universe. MW2 and MW3 seem less so. Earlier games I am not sure about I confess. But this sheer mass of information is going to get very hard to handle if we have to include universe. Imagine the Medium Laser page... description, BT stats, models, canonicity notice, stats from possibly every game ever published and likely notes to explain the stats. That is going to be a huges and messy article.
I would say see the Medium Laser article again and take not of how that has handled the video game stuff, tweak that to point to specific weapon pages maybe? --Dmon (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2014 (PDT)
Okay, Dmon, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. A the bottom of each weapon page is a list of links to the weapon's stats in different games. I just want to put a notice at the top of the pages so that people can find them when they, for example, search on google and come to the medium laser page. We have weapon pages for MCX (which is finished), and MC2 (close). We already have in place what you were suggesting. I'm just wanting to add a little tidbit at the top of each page so people understand where to go and so they can find the info they are looking for. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2014 (PDT)
Ah sorry, yeah I think that sounds like a good idea then. --Dmon (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2014 (PDT)
No problem. I'll go ahead with adding them and if people have a problem I'll remove them. -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2014 (PDT)

Completed Designs[edit]

So, in an effort to try and isolate the pages that are quite specifically about the technologies themselves I have calved off all pages regarding specific designs to s sub category of the Technology category. The point of this is that I suspect people looking for technology pages are mostly looking for details about the technology that designed units are built from rather than the designed units themselves. I have grouped the categories such as BattleMechs, Warships, Fighters etc, together into the category of "Completed Designs" which is still linked on the Technology category but those individual categories are still another layer deep.-- LRichardson 11:04, 3 March 2015 (PST)