Category talk:Totem BattleMechs
I very strongly do not think we should have this as a category... It is a rather subjective and to a degree debatable subject so I think it is better to confine to the one article (that contains a defenition) rather than have it actually linked to 'Mech articles.--Dmon (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2018 (EST)
- I did create it only because of the article... If more people agrees, let's take it out.--Pserratv (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2018 (EST)
- I'm on the fence on this one.
- On one side, yes the criteria are loose at best and there is no way to make a distinction based on verifiable facts. In this regard, Totem 'Mechs are similar to Bug 'Mechs for which no category was created either. This would go against having a Totem 'Mech category.
- On the other hand, there's a surprising lot about them and I have a feeling players may possibly find the category useful when putting together a force with some fluff/RPG context. So while I half expect to regret it at some point (and thus reserve the right to change my opinion and kill it with fire ;) ), I'd suggest to keep the category. But please reword it to make it absolutely clear that the criteria are ultimately subjective, and also please make an attempt to define or at least approximate the criteria. I may attempt to rewrite the category text myself but given my extremely busy schedule for this month it's unlikely to come from me. Frabby (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2018 (EST)
From Category Talk:Totem Mechs
- I like the name better than "Totem BattleMechs", the current category name, because "BattleMechs" falsely (I think) implies that OmniMechs cannot be Totem 'Mechs. But following the style guide, 'Mech is always written with an apostrophe (') preceding the "M", so I suggest to properly name the category "Category: Totem 'Mechs". Frabby (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2018 (EST)