BattleTechWiki talk:BattleMech Portal

lioulet

BattleMech Portal

(transferred from the Project: BattleMech discussion page)

• I would suggest making a Category or naming the mechs so they align by tonnage then alphabetically. comment by Veretax
  • I agree with you that the 'Mechs should be categorized by weight class (and also by factions). If there's a way to do it thru the general BattleMech category method, then I don't know it. However, it should definitely be possible to add specific categories for 'Mech weight class. For example, we can put a two category tags for Assassin that would look like this:
    
    [[Category:BattleMechs]][[Category:Medium BattleMechs]]
    
    In fact, you've kinda given me an idea for a BattleMech 'portal' page, so that people can find their 'Mechs by the method they want. --Revanche 11:03, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
    • The above was from a discussion Veretax started on the Custom template for 'Mechs, and it got me thinking. I could see us having a portals section on the main page for several categories (in fact, each could be added the Units section that is there now). When you click on BattleMech Portal, it takes you to a Main Page for BattleMechs. There are all sorts of links: general category, like we have now, weight class, faction lists, etc. We could include weapon types, etc. What do you think? If we wanted to do it, we should start once CJKeys finishes the 3025 'Mechs and fill those in accordingly. I can build the Portal Page. --Revanche 11:03, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
      • I think that it woudl be a wonderful Idea. I knwo I use the general Mech listing that I originally constructed to know what 'Mechs come next for entering but it woudl be cool to be able to look them up by weight class, albpabetically and maybeeven cost and BV.--CJKeys 22:22, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
        • • Personally, I would like to see categories added for custom mechs based on the faction they were created for, though keeping it general enough not to make it hard to navigate. Something along the lines of [[Category:Inner Sphere Custom]], [[Category:Clan Custom]], [[Category:Periphery Custom]] and [[Category:Mercenary Custom]]. This should be rather easy to add for the first two because they have some spaces left in the box.Onisuzume 05:05, 24 February 2009 (PST)
        • I'm curious, cause I was looking for various ways to further select them. Your idea on cost and BV is interesting. How would you 'categorize' them that way? Maybe links to: weight, faction, cost, BV, etc. Then, when you click on that, it takes you to a sub-portal page, where you choose, say, your BV range: 1300-1400. All 'Mechs within that range would have a category tag that read "Category:BV13-14" Tell ya what...while you finish up 3025, I'll start on a test portal and see what we can do with it. --Revanche (admin) 00:37, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
          • Cool, I will probly be done with 3025 soon, been making drafts for all the heavies, have to type them and then post them.--CJKeys 19:12, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
            • Heavies done,m starting on assaults, nine left. With any luck will be done before the end of the week on 3025.--CJKeys 07:58, 1 November 2006 (CST)
              • That's great, CJ. I'm hoping to get Nic's help on the portal site, but I started thinking: maybe we'll (you & I) want to star organizaing the 3025 'Mechs according to faction, BV, etc, so that follow on creators/editors understand the procedures for soing so. --Revanche (admin) 09:01, 1 November 2006 (CST)
                • I am asuming we will base the faction and sorting information only on the "base model" mechs at this point. We can use the Faction List to make sure that the factions are correct. I would just need to know what I need to put into the articles as far as tags and such and I could go from there. We should also include the 2750 Mechs in that as well, they will primarily be C*, SLDF and WoB for the faction but they also woudl have the sorting for BV as well.--CJKeys 17:32, 1 November 2006 (CST)
                  • As far as category tags go, take a look at the BattleMech Portal now and see what I've done for Mass. I need to work on colors for the page, I know, but is the functionality of how Mass is represented worthy? --Revanche (admin) 17:48, 11 November 2006 (CST)
                    • I have taken a look at it. For Mass and how it is done it looks good. As far as factions I think having the Terran Hegemony is a little redundant as everything they had eventually become units in the old SLDF. I think we can use the Faction List to determine who uses what 'Mech. In doing BV I would break it down into either 500 or 250 pont incriments. I dont think there are any 'Mechs below 250 I may be wrong though. So categories of - 0-499, 500-999, 1000-1499, 1500-1999, 2000-2499, 2500 and up - may be our best bet on thet. Let me know what you think. I have also provided a link to the [Faction List http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~lacasse/factionlist/] if you are not familar with it. It is also useful for verifying Battle Values of 'Mechs.--CJKeys 22:26, 11 November 2006 (CST)
                      • No, I absolutely agree with you that the Faction List is the way to go. I was just more trrying out the style of the table and the manner of category names for your testing. The TH was added, really, because I didn't have access to Combat Operations' faction list. As I consider the Le Casse list really as canon as you can get without coming from FanPro, I'll use that link (tomorrow) to build out the various tables. Thanks. --Revanche (admin) 23:11, 11 November 2006 (CST)
                    • As far as categories to cover, I'm including roles. There's a free download PDF from CBT (universe or maybe quick game rules) that breaks down all 'Mechs into 7 roles (I need to re-read it). That's pretty canon, so I thought I'd add it as an Alternate method. It will require some analysis/opinion when applying it to 'Mechs. --Revanche (admin) 11:11, 12 November 2006 (CST)
                      • I will take a look at it too. I know the document you're talking about but it has been a very very long time since I have seen it. --CJKeys 15:19, 12 November 2006 (CST)

Roles

• Okay, I've completed building the Roles section for Alternates, and I've added the cat tags to all 'Mechs so identified in the CBT Introductory Rulebook. Several things I've noticed: 1) We probably really need to decide how we best want to organize the variants issue soon, so that it doesn't become a cluster 'foalup' when the mobs arrive. Some of the roles I applied probably fit better under the correct variants page, rather than the base model. 2) Without having dissected it too much, on the surface it looks like some 'Mechs can fill more than one role (which I have no problem with). However, I could see some people saying, "I use it for a skirmisher," without giving too much thought as to how a skirmisher and a striker might differ. I'm thinking that a 'decision' tree might be helpful, in categorizing the 'Mechs into those roles. However, I also think, it'd be best to have the variants articles almost completed, before undertaking this role, as roles are dependent upon the weapons loadout of the variants. --Revanche (admin) 10:48, 13 November 2006 (CST)

Categorisation

I'm thinking that we should try to add categories in this order (as in, the order they appear on a BattleMech's page, not when they're added to it…€” that should be left up to whoever has the time and inclination):

1. Class
2. Weight
3. BattleValue
4. Faction
5. Role

Rationale for this order?

Well, it's ridiculously easy to look up your favourite 'Mechs via class, then slightly more difficult to break them down into weight, then comes BV. At that point, you've got the two 'wild cards'; faction and role. Faction's easier to define than role, so it takes precedence in listing, IMO.

Why bother with ordering them at all?

because ordering the categories like this makes the site as intuitive and easy to find information within as possible and is barely a step above the regular workload. Less scrolling is always a good thing, IMO. Any objections?

--Xoid 08:35, 23 November 2006 (CST)

Take a look at the Atlas' article for an example of it in practice. --Xoid 08:42, 23 November 2006 (CST)

I'm liking it. It is intuitive. This should really be a permanent mission of Project:BattleMechs, as in they/we need to make sure the standard is constantly & consistently applied. I was gonna say, "Otherwise the Readers may get frustrated with the inconsistency," but it is as much the Readership's responsibility to maintain consistency as anyone's, I imagine. --Revanche (admin) 14:32, 23 November 2006 (CST)

Categorisation, Mk II

This is in relation the Categorisation heading just above. What about conventional BattleMechs and OmniMechs? Do we currently have categories that separate these two? Where do ProtoMechs and such fit into the hierarchy? (I'm currently thinking that they don't; they'd go in their own category. Are they more or less closely related to 'Mechs than Elementals?)

Finally, what of Titans of Steel and Neveron? Do we encourage, discourage or outright prohibit the right of custom Titans/(whatever Neveron uses) to have their own pages? Considering that ToS isn't like BattleTech (in that customisation of Titans is ridiculously common and easy) should the stock designs even be listed? --Xoid 02:39, 26 October 2007 (CDT)

I have been adding Category:OmniMechs as appropriate, but haven't actually created the category yet... just haven't gotten around to it. I would imagine that Category:ProtoMechs would be an appropriate place for Protos, which are really distinct in and of themselves. I don't know enough about ToS to comment on it, but I would imagine that any Neveron units that get added would be categorized as Neveron, not 'Mechs. Scaletail 20:40, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

Category:BattleMechs currently includes all 'Mechs, regardless of whether they're Omni or conventional. I'm thinking that means Category:Conventional BattleMechs or some-such is required. I, being lazy, don't like that idea when we could just make an empty 'Mechs category, then add Category:BattleMechs, Category:OmniMechs (and Category:ProtoMechs?) as subcategories. All that would be required then would be to remove Category:BattleMechs from all OmniMech articles. --Xoid 18:25, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

Laziness, FTW. On another note, I feel like the Battle Value categorization is useless. I think the concept is good, but in practice many 'Mech articles end up falling into multiple BV categories (especially the oldest designs), which are really too broad to be of any actual use. On the other hand, narrower categories (say... 250 point increments) force even more categorization as the variants diverge in points. I suppose it is useful in a general sort of comparison, but was that what was intended? Scaletail 20:32, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

I have no idea. The first time I encountered BV was on Sarna. It's much the same sort of thing with roles, TBH. Unless the variants are split off into their own articles I don't really see the point in either of the categories. AFAIK, the rule of thumb for the moment is categorisation by BV should be done only for the variant listed in the infobox. Considerably less work, but not all that helpful. If it wasn't for how utterly absymal MediaWiki's search functionality is I'd say scrap the categories altogether and let people search for them instead. --Xoid 08:49, 31 October 2007 (CDT)

Categorization by Age/Era

I don't know if this been touched on, but has there been any consideration on using age / era catagories for mech? I know this is slippery since many designs appeared all at once and existed during span of the succession wars. In keeping things simple. I like propose a catagoery using the era age that design was active in. Example: Tundra Wolf was created during the Jihad, and active during Dark Age. Thus it should have era of Jihad, Dark Age as catagory. --Wrangler 06:24, 15 March 2009 (PDT)

I don't think it's a good idea for exactly the reason you suggest. Very few designs ever go extinct, so your proposed Dark Age category would include almost 'Mech on this wiki. I'm not really sure how that's helpful. Like the problem with categorizing by Battle Value, you also have 'Mechs with a dozen variants, many of which were introduced over the years. Besides, I think 'Mech articles have enough categories already. --Scaletail 08:30, 15 March 2009 (PDT)