Talk:BattleMech Timetable

Extinction Era[edit]

Should the "Extinction Era" signify the date a design is no longer seen (at all), which to me seems a lot harder to pinpoint, or should it reflect the end of production?--S.gage 10:59, 28 February 2012 (PST)

I figured it would mainly refer to the designs that have effectively disappeared (Woodsman & Super Hornet) or have become exceedingly rare (more so than the Flashman) that examples of them might only be found in museums or Star League caches (Mackie & Exterminator). Then if the design is revived (like the Hammerhands or Battleaxe) it would have a reintroduction date. I know many rare designs were put into production again after the discovery of the Helm Memory Core and during the Jihad.--Seth 22:57, 1 March 2012 (PST)
I thought I would ask because of the gray areas. For instance, when Clan Ghost Bear took Tokasha, they ceased production of the Nova (Black Hawk). Why is beyond me, but ever since 2921, Nova OmniMechs have been maintained with spare parts produced during a 51 year window. Another example is the Striker BattleMech. As of 3058, less than 300 Strikers remain in Inner Sphere, where once it was one of the most common assault 'Mechs in number. To me, both of these are as good as "extinct", since any GM can decide a long-lost Alfar was found in the Periphery, or any other plot line. It is much harder to prove something does not exist vs. something is no longer in production. In fact, I would prefer "production ceased" to "extinct" for that reason, or both. What do you think?--S.gage 21:02, 3 March 2012 (PST)
Is it certainly possible to add another category for mechs that have ceased production or stopped production for a considerable amount of time. I like the idea of adding a second property for designs that have stopped production because some designs are certainly extinct like many of the first BattleMechs and OmniMechs. I think that would work well to differentiate Mechs like the Clint IIC from the Woodsman.--Seth 00:09, 5 March 2012 (PST)
I added a [[Production Ceased::]] property to the table. See the Clint IIC page or on the timeline table to see an example. Mech pages that are already annotated as extinct but are only no longer being produced should be fixed.--Seth 00:16, 5 March 2012 (PST)

New Mechs[edit]

I notice we miss a lot of the TRO: 3145 Mercs Mechs and others from various sources.--Doneve (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (PDT)

Major Overhaul[edit]

Basically, what I'm looking to do is change "Production Year" to "Introduction Year" as the searched-for field when populating the timetable so as to not interrupt infoboxes on various BattleMech pages. Buuuuut, it seems I don't quite have all the pieces together when trying to do this. I've already created a Property:Introduction Year (and used the tag on Alfar as a test page), but when I change this...

<!--The dates are compiled into a single table here--> {{#ask:[[Category:BattleMechs]] |?Production Year |?Production Ceased |?Extinction Era |?Reintroduction Year |format=table |mainlabel=BattleMech Timetable |offset=0 |limit=1000 }}

to this...

<!--The dates are compiled into a single table here--> {{#ask:[[Category:BattleMechs]] |?Introduction Year |?Production Ceased |?Extinction Era |?Reintroduction Year |format=table |mainlabel=BattleMech Timetable |offset=0 |limit=1000 }}

It won't populate the table with the Alfar's date. I guess this ain't quite as simple as I thought. Any help would be appreciated. Mattiator (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2015 (PDT)


The best is you look on User:Seth's page, and his discussions.--Doneve (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2015 (PDT)

Thank you for that! I think I've almost got it. The issue seemed to be that I wasn't capitalizing properly, since according to the history of the property page for "Introduction Year", it got moved to "Introduction year" (note the lowercase) while I was doing other edits which then borked my initial test. Not exactly sure why. But, testing with "Introduction year" it seems to interface identically as "Production Year" did. I'm heading off to work, so I'll toss up an "Undergoing overhaul" and continue when I get home. Mattiator (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2015 (PDT)
Whew. That's every 'Mech under "A" done. This is going to take a loooong time. D'oh well. If there's one thing I like to think I'm good for doing on Sarna, it's repetitive tasks like this. Mattiator (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2015 (PDT)
You could probably get Doneve or I to help... we like doing these sort of repetitive things. I haven't seen exactly what you're doing, so if you could explain it, I may help out. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2015 (PDT)
Basically, just replacing/adding the Introduction Year tag to every single page in Category:BattleMechs, whether via the new template or with year references in the body of the article so that the timetable will pick up the 'Mech's first introduction date, and display it. Mattiator (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2015 (PDT)

Table does not populate[edit]

Any updates on this? Anything I can do to help? I'll wade right in. Shakespeare (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

I would be interested to know as well. Right now, the production year links on pretty much all mech/vehicle pages are 'broken' leading to this page, rather than the usual time line section. Thehawk (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
Should be fixed now! Nicjansma (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2018 (EST)
Thanks. Also, it seems there are quite a few sections (example: that editors placed 'Introduction Year::XXXX' or 'Production Year:XXXX' in the production information box, which literally lists it out as that. I assume these will need to be fixed on each individual page. All of these tags seem to work only in the main part of an article. Thehawk (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Variant Introduction Date[edit]

How would one denote when a variant entered service? Use the Reintroduction Year tag or would we need a new tag and/or category? Shakespeare (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2017 (EDT)