BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs

This article is within the scope of the Project BattleMechs, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of BattleMechs. 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.

Archive Archive1

Faction Categories

FIVE-one asked a question that I've been kicking around for a while, so I finally decided to ask it. When categorizing 'Mechs by faction, do we want to give them all of the categories it would fall under per Combat Operations, or do we want to categorize it by the producer? While I can see why ComOps is the point of origin for this, I don't think we should use it to categorize 'Mech articles. It should be classified by the producer/creator. For instance, the Eagle is produced in the FWL, but sold to the CC. Since it is usable by the CC, it is listed under CC in ComOps, but it's not a Capellan 'Mech. Anybody else have an opinion? --Scaletail 21:40, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Well, I think some Clan 'Mechs were listed in other Clans because many 'Mech designs are widespread throughout the Clans due to many Trials of Possession and battle salvage. Otherwise, when a foreign is present in a "foreign" Clan, it does not automatically mean the 'Mech is produced in this Clan. In my example (the Kodiak, a totem 'Mech), the design is only produced by Clan Ghost Bear. --FIVE-one 03:00, 14 December 2007 (CST)

Since I wrote the original commentary as I was getting ready for bed, allow me to clarify. There seems to be two different ways we could categorize 'Mechs:

1. By all factions that have access to them (as is essentially done with the "General" categories). This means that even if a given faction does not build a design, then it may still be listed because it trades for it (or whatever) in significant enough quantities. The advantage of this is that is can be done using the Force Faction Tables listed in Combat Operations (or the web whenever the new one gets done). The downside is that 'Mechs again end up categorized all over the place, especially with 3025 'Mechs that now have all kinds of exclusive variants, which means they will end up with a dozen or more categories.
2. By producing faction. This would (in my mind) essentially necessitate a bastardization of the info in ComOps with some 'Mechs being "General" (available to all factions- Clan or IS) and others "belonging" to one faction.

This is an issue that I have basically tabled because I believe the members of this project were waiting to finish all of the 'Mech articles before we decided what path to take, but I think we are sufficiently close to completion that it is something we can discuss. I prefer the second way, myself. It may (may!) be slightly more problematic in certain instances, but I think it is the more appropriate way to deal with this here. --Scaletail 15:00, 14 December 2007 (CST)

This essentially tackles what I intended to do with a section about "proliferation" in my above suggestion to improve the 'Mech templates. For a roleplayer like me, any 'Mech could show up anywhere if it can be explained by a feasible backstory. Some unusual cases are even canon: A particular Black Thorns warrior is a fugitive from a Capellan Warrior House who brought his Raven 'Mech, and vice versa a WH Hiritsu warrior rides one of three Tomahawks in the Capellan Confederation in the novel Binding Force where the history of the 'Mech is even explained in some detail. Any 'Mech design could turn up as salvage, anywhere. It comes down to the fact that no table or categoy could ever do the proliferation justice, regardless of whether they are categorized by producer, designer, or whatever. It will always be a grey area and should be noted as "proliferation" in each individual 'Mech entry. Frabby 15:23, 14 December 2007 (CST)

I see the problem with listing a 'Mech within a certain faction (solely because it served in that faction's military) as one of over-saturation. I can acknowledge that /will/ become a problem, if the standard is any single mention of a 'Mech type within a faction merits its inclusion as /available/ to that faction as a whole. However, like the faction lists of ComOps and the ones placed in the newer tomes, there is value in a User being able to see what unit types a faction can muster.

I'd suggest a compromise somewhere in between: if the only mention of a unit type ('Mech, ASF, whatever) is that of a Hero one (i.e., the unit itself becomes a character because of its uniqueness), then it is not 'fielded' by that faction. Instead, units are only fielded by a faction if the canon suggests they are included in military formations and are not assumed to be special because of their uniqueness. Ex: Sergeant Milhouse of the 25th Lyran Whatevers pilots a family 'Mech (of the PIB-27 Puss-In-Boots variety) that he brought with him when he defected from the Kuritans. However, the canon mentions the same battalion fields that 'Mech type because of a large cache found back in 2927 and they've been keeping the formation suitably supplied. In the first case by itself, the Lyrans don't field the PIB-27, so the article would't merit be categorized with the Lyrans. However, in the case of the second, the article would. In other words, if the only mention is of 'Mechs being fielded because of singular, unique reasons, they don't warrant being categorized as that faction's. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:05, 14 December 2007 (CST)

Frabby, I don't know what you intend to do with "proliferation," nor what you expect anybody else to do. Perhaps if you could give an example, or tell me where this information could be found it would help. I don't think this will be an issue if we choose to base our decision on a canon source. ComOps has a list of what factions field significant quantities of what units, so we can use that as the guide and nothing else if we would like. I agree that every faction fields at least one of almost every 'Mech in production. For example, there are Dragons all over place. I suspect that the FedSuns field a somewhat significant number of them, but it is still thought of as a Combine BattleMech, so BTW should reflect that. Similarly, any unit that is not listed under the "General" list in ComOps should be categorized by the producing faction(s) only. --Scaletail 19:19, 15 December 2007 (CST)

Having read this discussion a couple of different times, I have come up with another solution, as I dislike the current situation. I understand that people want to know generally what factions field what units in significant quantities, and it's something that I agree should be included, though I still think a numbered system is unrealistic. I also believe that trying to use categories to provide this information is simply not up to the task. The compromise would be to put this information in the body of the article. In addition to the design history and stats in the "Description" section, we can also include info about what factions field the unit (based upon the tables in ComOps and more updated info). This then allows us to condense the categories and only put 'Mechs in one faction category. --Scaletail 18:32, 29 July 2008 (CDT)

I agree with Scaletail mostly. The categories should be supported with textual evidence, or it would be even better if the mechs used by the factions would be articles, which would allow us to remove the faction categories completely. This would really be an improvement because each editor has different views on when a mech should be listed under a category. --Neufeld 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Humm... How About approching it form another direction... Each Variant having a "Produced By" section and a "Used By" Section. would it be possible to have toggles? --Cameron 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Age of Destruction Era 'Mechs

I would like to create some Clan exclusives 'Mechs, that I use to fight with in MechWarrior : Age of Destruction. However I don't have any photo from any TRO about those, seen there is no TRO speaking about those beasts, only 'Mech dossier which are given with their 'Mechs. Those contains some impressive images I might add if you allow me to do so, with a link to the original dossier .PDF on Wizkids Official Site. I already have three entries I can create : Shrike (like Melvina Hazen's one), Gyrfalcon and Eyrie plus the Jade Hawk. I can do so with other Clan exclusives like the Sun Cobra, Wulfen and Warwolf (Clan Wolf), Karhu (Clan Ghost Bear/Rasalhague Dominion), Cave Lion (Clan Nova Cat/Spirit Cats; Ocelot is already done). (I'm not sure but I think the Ghost can be added as a Clan Nova Cat one.) --FIVE-one 14:17, 5 January 2008 (CST)

We haven't yet decided what we want to do with with the MW:DA/AoD 'Mechs, but I think most of them can be included using the same format we have now. TPTB have hinted that a new TRO may be on the way soon(ish), so I think we will eventually have the info to fill in whatever gaps exist. I'd say go for it, and if you run into any significant problems, ask for specific help. --Scaletail 15:23, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Cool, the only question I would have is how to handle the references from the dossiers. --MEC 17:58, 5 January 2008 (CST)

While I don't play AoD or own anything from it, I have seen a lot of the stuff WK put up on their website. I would recommend using the title of the card ("Jupiter Technical Readout card", for example) and providing a link to the .pdf on the website if its available. I see that the alphanumerical designation of the card has been used, but that's personally of no use to me, though more info cannot hurt. I'm not sure how much sense that makes, but hopefully I'm not way out in left field. --Scaletail 18:19, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I propose that DA/AoD variants of 'Mechs are placed into their own section. Agree/disagree? --Scaletail 18:18, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

I would agree if it was clear the design only existed in DA/AoD era only. As I am putting in MWDA record sheet book's listing in myself, I've found that example DA Koshi is a non-OmniMech, but it has no fluff other than data cards/dossiers. The DA Koshi is currently listed with it OmniMech parent. Is possible to list DA Koshi as Koshi (2nd), so not be confused with the original? By having (2nd) instead of Koshi 2, it would be less confusing and avoid worrying if it has a pre or post Jihad introduction date. Other 'Mechs with similar non-Omni variants include the DA Black Hawk which is likely new design since Old Nova is out production as of the 3050 Upgrade.

Like the video game variants below, I was really referring to variants of existing 'Mechs that just don't have CBT stats. On the specific subjects of the Black Hawk and Koshi, do you have any sources that state the variants are not modifications to the OmniMechs? I can't imagine why a 'Mech that is the same tonnage with the same name would be an entirely different 'Mech. The new variants could simply be modifications of existing Black Hawks. --Scaletail 08:50, 15 March 2009 (PDT)

Video game entries

This has been put off, but, since the issue has come up, I believe it is time to address what to do with video-game exclusive 'Mechs and variants. I personally believe that any variants that do not have corresponding stats in CBT should be given their own section and denoted as video game-only variants. 'Mech articles on video game-exclusive designs should be clearly and prominently labeled as such. I give the floor to everybody else. --Scaletail 18:54, 28 January 2008 (CST)

What exactly do you mean by Video Game only, like 'Mechs from Mektek that were modded into MW4, like the Gesu, Deimos, or the Thanatos XMT? --Quicksilver Kalasa 22:34, 18 August 2008 (CDT)

Variants of 'Mechs or entirely new 'Mechs that do not have official CBT stats, yet are clearly part of BattleTech. In a sense, this will be based on whatever is decided in the canonicity discussion that is wrapping up. For an example of how I have done this, see Shootist. --Scaletail 07:49, 19 August 2008 (CDT)

Related Design/Chasis

I feel something in the 'Mech descriptions is missing from the wiki entries. 'Mech designs are frequently described to be related (either by chasis, component, or configuration) to classic BattleMechs. However, some derivative design information is missing, especially from the entries for the parent designs (but sometime on both the parent and derivative entry). For example:

Marauder - Rakshasa (TRO 3055, p. 72), Dragon Fire (TRO 3058, p. 128), Maelstrom (TRO 3058, p. 130), Nightsky (TRO:3058, p144)

Vindicator - Snake (TRO 3055, p. 38)

In cases with iconic BattleMechs and their derivative designs, can we list all of the designs which are explicitly described as related (in the fluff) to a parent design? In this regard, I am only suggesting a subsection giving all related designs, distinct from variants. These entries would not go into detail about capabilities. People would only see a link and a short sentence describing the relationship, and could follow the trail on their own to find out more. Maybe even include a family tree for the design. What do you think?--S.gage 11:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would recommend either following the existing format of listing them at the end of the "Variants" section or noting it in the body of the text. I'm not too sure about the family tree, though, since it's not like that would go very far. --Scaletail 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Question : Nightsky? Perhaps you meant Nightstar? :) The Nightsky was like a second-generation Hachetman. Nightstar was a 95-ton cross between a Marauder II and a Turkina. ClanWolverine101

BV 1.0

Should we still have BV 1.0 in infoboxes? --Neufeld 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for the time being. I've thought about this too (it'll be rather easy to turn off), but I'm of the mind that until a master BV list is issued or once all of the core books are out, then there are still people who can't be expected to be up on the 'latest' system. Its a bit more complicated than the two-month moratorium. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Unlike Revanche, I don't think it will ever go away. We're trying to collect every minutiae from BattleTech, so why not this, too? --Scaletail 02:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Deployment & users

Info about deployment and users seems to be missing from most mech pages. I suggest that we add a policy about adding such a section to mech pages. The Catagory:Faction X tags seems to cause more questions than answers. --Neufeld 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm all for adding those ==sections== to the QuckStart page, but I believe this bears some further discussion. (Posting this on the Main page's chatterweb section.) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a Project BattleMechs guideline that we only include important MechWarriors (i.e. main characters) in the 'Mech articles, so, in many cases, having none is complete. The 'Mech articles on BTW are not meant to be, nor should they ever be, barely-reworded technical readouts. I don't know why "deployment" was left out of the original template, but I don't know a compelling reason to include it, either; "because it's there" is not satisfactory to me.

The categories for 'Mechs have been problematic. There has been discussion about the faction categories, but I don't believe consensus was ever reached. --Scaletail 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For me the reason is all the questions about why is mech X and mech Y listed under factions A and B from ClanWolverine101. So we shoudl either add a deployment section or remove the faction categories. --Neufeld 07:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding TRULY notable pilots : Most of the "notable pilots" from the TROs are, frankly, nobodies. I've made it a point to put major character notable pilots on mech articles, and also to add "Battlemech note" sections in major character bios where appropriate. (Not every major character was known for being a mech jock.) Never is this an issue with the TROs. ClanWolverine101

Also : Yeah, notes on deployment would be cool. Many mechs have unusual deployments; look at the Spider/Venom, which was primarily built at an FWL factory but primarily used by DCMS mechs. I've challenged some of the faction-portal categories - sometimes I've removed them, other times, people point out that one of the TRO Upgrades specifically states the distribution to a certain faction that one might not expect. (Take the Dragon Fire, which by the book was produced at a Lyran factory, but was apparently sold mostly to the DCMS, and was later exclusive to WoB.) I may start adding this. ClanWolverine101

I use Combat Operations for the faction categories, that way there is no guesswork. I agree that there are certain instances, such as the ones Wolverine listed, where the deployment is notable; however, most of the deployment description is in regards to one or two specific units that have some of the 'Mechs and a description of a battle where the 'Mech was used. I don't think most of those are important for the 'Mech article, though it may be worthwhile to include in the article for the command. --Scaletail 23:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal : The Faction portal category tags should have reference citations attached. Sound better? ClanWolverine101 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can. I had honestly never given it thought before, so I tested out referencing a category, and it just looks like a footnote with no text attached to it. It would be impossible to tell what is cited. I like the idea, but I don't think the technology supports it. --Scaletail 00:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As it looks as if the discussion has wound down, I would say consensus was not reached. I'd suggest that interested parties demonstrate, through a handful of 'Mechs, what the benefits are to adding additional sections and then re-engage the discussion.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's a demonstration: Hornet. Deployment section added, and user category without textual evidence removed. --Neufeld 12:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that there are some 'Mechs, such as the Venom and Hornet, that have notable deployments in that the Venom is odd because it is produced in one state and used in another, while the Hornet's is key because it went through a sort of live-fire proving. I think the deployment section in most TROs is more like the Snow Fox, which restates that the 'Mech is a second-line unit and says the Ice Hellion's Zeta Galaxy has a lot of them. It's not really important to the 'Mech and restates information from earlier in the entry. Obviously, there are 'Mechs for which they way they are deployed is notable, but I don't think that's the case for the majority. I see no problem adding this info into the "Description" section for articles where it is appropriate, but I don't think it should be mandated for all of them. --Scaletail 01:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you supporting inclusion of significant deployemts (as you detailed above) in the Descriptions section, or just the 'mentioned' usage? In other words, do you allow for a Deployments section, when there is significant cause? (Seeking clarification.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We also have to discuss if we should allow Category:UserX type tags to be used without supporting text. --Neufeld 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The info on the hornet was impressive, IMHO, and it served the purpose I've been pushing. I want to try a similar approach myself to a couple of other mechs that have unusual deployments, and I'll check back here to see if people like them. ClanWolverine101 17:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that I don't think a "Deployment" section is necessary, but that it is important in the development of certain 'Mechs. The Hornet's story, for instance, is wrapped up in the FedSuns' acceptance of the design and agreement to greater production runs. I don't see why that can't go in the "Description" section. My concern is that a dedicated "Deployment" section leads to the implication that any article without one is incomplete, so here's what I say: include the information using the existing template, where appropriate, for any and every article that it is germane to. I'll even make a suggestion for an article that would be improved by the addition, No-Dachi. That's a case where the way it was deployed led to its acceptance within the DCMS and widespread adoption by that faction. I just don't think the deployment information warrants inclusion for every single 'Mech.

Neufeld, if you scroll up, you will find an existing discussion on faction categories. Please add your comments there on that subject. --Scaletail 00:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, continuing discussion there. --Neufeld 16:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as an impartial observer and admin towards this discussion, I've seen Neufeld's suggested example and ClanWolverine101's support for it, but also Scaletail's suggestion that discussion of 'Mech useage remain in the "Description" sections. As there has been no return to consensus seeking following Scaletail's remarks, it appears consensus is to keep 'Mech articles as they are presently.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Apocryphal Mechs

Question : Would a Apocryphal Mech go in the same category as the other mechs, albeit with the Apocryphal tags? I'm thinking about adding the Ragnarok mech from the MechWarrior (1992 Video Game) SNES game. Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds right. I think it might be a good idea to only put it in the "BattleMechs" category, since the other, specialized categories are generally more geared towards CBT. --Scaletail 00:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh - no problem. As I feel the subcategories are over-used anyway. Can I get a link to the template? ClanWolverine101 01:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Help:CreateMechArticle This one? --Scaletail 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Deployment and Users - Part II

The previous convo had grown too long and unwieldy in my case. Better to start off anew. I am formally proposing we put up information fields covering the Deployment & Users for every Battlemech. Obviously, this is a large project, and in the case of some of the clans, we probably don't have enough material to work with at this time. Nevertheless, I feel it deserves consideration. I am NOT proposing we copy anything verbatim from the TROs; merely that we use it as a resource as we have always done. In my mind, one of the most important elements of any mech is "Who actually uses it in significant numbers?" as opposed to "Who may have salvaged a couple, refitted to their own variant, inevitably being added to the faction portal system?" These are not simple questions.
So - who is with me on this one? ClanWolverine101 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I will restate my position from above. In many cases this information is important, but not all. If an editor feels it is, add the information in the "Description" section. I do not support a section being added to every 'Mech article that calls for "deployment" information. --Scaletail 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scaletail on this one. In my opinion the notable warrior information and faction deployment information should be a part of the Description section. I think adding an extra section is overkill for most of the 'Mechs.--Mbear 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think ClanWolverine101 has a point. Early on when I joined the BTW team I suggested a revamp of the 'Mech articles, to include data on manufacturing centers and proliferation. I realize this is a task of daunting magnitude, but I'd still like to see that kind of info on the 'Mech pages. Personally, I feel it's far more valuable than BV. And most articles need a rewrite anyways, much descriptive text is both uninformative and awkward. Frabby 20:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Frabby, if any of the information you have described is available in a canon source and is not in the 'Mech articles already, then I encourage you to add it. I'm unclear what your position is with relation to CW's proposal. --Scaletail 23:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to concede (for the moment) the part about a "Deployment" section. I will fight to the death in a circle of equals anyone who fights the "notable pilot" section, even if it doesn't apply to most mechs. ClanWolverine101 01:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Faction Categories redux

The faction categories are a mess and need some guidance. Various ideas have been thrown about for years, but none have stuck. Since it's been almost two years since I proposed this idea regarding the faction categories, I'm going to re-propose it:

“

any 'Mech that is not listed under the "General" list (be it Clan General or Inner Sphere General) in Combat Operations (or its successor, should one ever be finished) should be categorized by the original producing faction(s) only, unless a canon source states otherwise.

”

By way of example, the Fenris would be categorized as Clan General and the Locust as Inner Sphere General. Raptor would be categorized as a Combine 'Mech, Warlord as a FedSuns design. Obviously, there will be some that don't fit this mold well, but this should probably be applicable to 90% of 'Mech articles. --Scaletail 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this. I have seen a number of mech/vehicle articles that fall under both "IS General" and under one or more factions. I believe allowing this reflects that its possible for a unit to qualify for "General" status, but for it also to be worth noting that its particularly common with one or more factions. I suppose you could argue that this shouldn't be such an issue with 3025 era mechs : In the days of pitifully few functioning factories, most mechs did become "IS General" simply from salvaging each other. For example, Liao seemed to have had a decent number of "Atlas" mechs despite never seeming to have produced it. But in the "current" era where we've seen over a hundred new mechs over the past few years, most built by only a single faction, this has become more relevant. Some, like the Grand Titan, were distributed so widely to be considered "IS General". Many others were not, and if the Capellan Confederation has a couple of "Gunslingers", they probably salvaged them from Davion forces they beat.

Make sense? ClanWolverine101 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's counter-intuitive. Either a 'Mech is generally available to all factions, or it's particular to a subset. "General", I think, implies that the 'Mech is fielded in roughly equal numbers by most factions that fall under that heading, and, therefore, is particularly identified with none.

Part of the goal of my suggestion is to tie the categories, at least in part, to a particular, canon source. This allows for less discrepancy, which has been a constant problem with no resolution. In this case, yes, both the Grand Titan and Atlas would be considered "General". --Scaletail 02:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to thing that the use of category tags should be limited to that canon sourcing. Mentioning exceptions, such as the occasional influx of Ravens in AFFS forces whenever they kick the crap out of the CapCon, should stay in the text of the article. Citizen Erased 03:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you about the AFFS Ravens - that's the point I was making.

""General", I think, implies that the 'Mech is fielded in roughly equal numbers by most factions..." exactly. Do you really want to imply that the Grand Titan is not much more common with the FWL than in the DC? Or that the Zeus is as common in the Capellan Confederation as it is in the Lyran Commonwealth? I would suggest not. ClanWolverine101 17:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So are we just all making the same point in different ways? :-p Citizen Erased 19:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we broadly agree on all but the most minute of points. I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae (but here I go anyways); maybe the Grand Titan is part of my estimated 10% that is an exception to the rule (thought the Zeus is not listed in General, so it's not an exception).

I would also point out my carefully nuanced language: "most factions". Just because a design is classified as "General" does not mean that every such faction fields significant quantities; just that many do. The Atlas is actually a good example, as it has been produced by no fewer than three IS factions over its history.

What I'm really trying to get at here, is that this would be a guideline, not a set-in-stone rule. We can debate the relative factionalization of a handful of 'Mechs, but that shouldn't derail what I think this is, overall, a good compromise that is rooted in a canon source. --Scaletail 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Scaletail - I'm not sure I understand what compromise you are proposing?

I added portal links for "Wolf's Dragoons Vehicles" on a number of vehicles that were originally exclusive to the WD, and were always most common there. You ripped out my tags, using the rationale that they were already in the "IS General" category. I guess this means that by your definition, those vehicles are as common in McCarron's Armored Cavalry as they are in WD? Certainly, the vehicles were eventually made available to other factions for purchase, but that's hardly justification for classifying it as "IS General", and its certainly not justification for dropping the WD tags, given the lineage.

Again - Look at the Awesome. "IS General" mech, yes? Has not been built outside the FWL since at least the Star League.

So what exactly are you proposing? At one point, I argued for a "Deployment" section for every mech article. There were objections to that. (I believe you were one?) Now you're telling me that I can't added faction tags if its already listed under "IS General". See where I'm coming from? ClanWolverine101 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I find the faction categories annoying, and would prefer to remove them, since having the usage in the text instead of a "binary" category prevents much needless debate. Also, the category bars of the mech pages are also too cluttered. --Neufeld 06:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Earlier, I proposed dropping the "role" portals (sniper, brawler, etc.), for the simple reason that most of them were arbitrary, and with so many variants and alternate configurations, it was silly to classify all versions of a mech as suitable to any one roll. My proposal was shot down by the powers that be. As I don't use BVs too much, I also would be in favor of dropping those tags as well. (No doubt others would object.) So while I totally understand you feeling those tags have gotten too long, the faction portals are really the only ones I have much interest in. ClanWolverine101 14:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

• Neufeld sparked a possible compromise idea with me: maybe the best way to address factions is to have (if we don't already) a master list article ala Combat Operations or the forthcoming MUL to be the site's authority, rather than categories. The Wikipedian in me appreciates categories, but the list (especially if hosted on the BattleMech portal page) would serve the same purpose when properly wiki-linked and seems to me to be a possible compromise.
• CW, I'm confident you didn't mean the phrase "was shot down by the powers that be" to come across a pejorative, but to be clear to others: the Admins on this site have consistently sought to come across like any other Editor, but empowered by Nic to perform certain administrative functions in his absence. Just because a majority of viewpoints may be in opposition to another Editor's opinion, it doesn't mean the Admins are performing as the traditional Powers That Be. We go to great pains to reach consensus with our fellow Editors on all matters, but also take it upon ourselves to be conversant in existing policy. If an Editor (be it an Admin or otherwise) presents an argument against your own in a discussion, address that argument. I know for a fact each of the Admins has been swayed by a proper and correct counter argument. If we are not challenged, then you cede to the consensus policy, and not to an Admin's will. I'd be very surprised (and disappointed) if any Admin here has ever used "Because I'm the Admin" as a reason to settle anything outside of site protection. In other words, we're all Editors here and some of us have added responsibility. usually behind the scenes. We have yet had to operate as arbiters, like on Wikipedia. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud efforts by the Admins and Editors to find consensus... when such efforts are legitimately made. If you check most of my posts on various talk pages, you'll find I almost always seek to find a consensus on an issue, to the point where I will suggest we do something, and another editor will go ahead and enact it before I can do so. (Lesson : "Be Bold" I guess.)

My complaint is this : If a number of articles were made under a certain criteria (i.e. A mech or vehicle under more than one faction category, as well as IS/Clan General), and there's been no policy discussion establishing that this is not ideal (with consensus following), then people who make new edits under that criteria shouldn't have their work zapped arbitrarily by an editor, admin or otherwise. At the very least, hit up the "Discussion" page of an article and say "Hey - I think this should just be 'IS General', and here's why..." That I can always respect, even if I disagree.

For the record, my comment regarding "the powers that be" had little to do with the Admins. I proposed an action, consensus did not follow it, so it didn't go any further than that. I'm totally fine with that. Later, someone else expressed frustration with an issue that my proposal was intended to correct (in this case, some of the category-portal tags have gotten crazy).

Most of my edits to established pages are additions. Occasionally, I do edit/revise obvious typos or incomplete pieces of information. If somebody's actually doing something a certain way in multiple articles, I talk with them, either on the article discussion page or their Talk page.

In other words - can't we all just get along? :P ClanWolverine101 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Let's nuke BV and faction categories. I was going to argue for BV categories after this discussion was resolved, anyways; I was just beaten to the punch. I think they're unwieldy and untenable with the format for 'Mech articles. What good is knowing that one variant is within a 500 point range? I don't think categories are the right way to convey this information.

As for faction categories, nobody can agree on how to use them. I've tried and tried over the years to reach consensus on a way for them to make sense, any way; I'm not really particular at this point. Unfortunately, they've devolved into a hodgepodge of nonsense because every editor who wants to can put their own stamp on what they mean, meaning that they've come to mean absolutely nothing. At this point, everybody thinks they should fulfill a different purpose, which means we'll never come to agreement on them. --Scaletail 01:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad we can actually agree on something. As I've said before, my ideal solution to the faction/portal issue would be a "Deployment" section under every relevant article. There's a reason why they used these in the TROs. But I understand that I am in the minority, so I've attempted to work with the faction portals. ClanWolverine101 03:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that having a "Deployment" heading in articles would be fine, so long as it isn't just a regurgitation from the page of the TRO. The usefulness of the faction tags, in my mind, was to have a page they linked to that listed the 'Mechs common to a given faction - something that could be done with what Revanche said about having a Master Unit List page. Citizen Erased 18:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And I see no reason not to go ahead with Rev's idea as well. ClanWolverine101 18:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I still see no reason for a "Deployment" section for every 'Mech article. The information can be provided just as well under the "Description" section, where appropriate. Besides, adding such a section would have no impact on what articles were in what categories.

I can get behind removing faction categories and replacing them with a list of what 'Mechs are available to what factions, except that I worry that that would become bogged down in exactly the same way the categories have been. Some people would argue only for certain factions, some would argue that every unit is available to every faction (if only in limited quantities), while others would be somewhere in between. If we can agree on how to create this list, then I think we can move forward. --Scaletail 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My answer to that: use the MUL (when released) as the guidance. In essence, recreate the MUL and utilize it as a link farm here.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

TRO3039 vs TRO3050 Variant order

BTW policy seems to be main variant of 'Mech's first TRO appearance is the prime variant, trumping sourcebook appearances, in practice this is good but there are a few anomalies with regards early sourcebooks (specifcally House Liao (The Capellan Confederation) and Wolf's Dragoons (sourcebook)) and TRO3050, where because TRO3050 was the first TRO to feature these 'Mechs so the upgraded 3050 versions are the prime rather than the original 3025 era versions there were originally introduced/manufactured as. With the release TRO3039 we've finally received level 1/3025 era TRO stats and fluff for these sourcebook 'Mechs, so I'm raising the question that IMO we should switch so their original models are the prime and the 3050 upgrades switched to variants.Cyc 02:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. For me... no. I like the status quo. When I think of an Imp, I think of the Imp from TRO 3050. Its like that with most of those other mechs as well. Just my 2 cents. ClanWolverine101 06:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ClanWolverine101. The "main" model for each page should be the most commonly associated one - which is, I'd assume for the most part, the first variant to hit print in a TRO from our perspective, not the first production model in-universe. Citizen Erased 18:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

BV Categories

As I stated a couple of discussion threads up, I don't think the BV categories are useful and should be deleted. There are multiple reasons; there are two different Battle Values, the overwhelming majority of 'Mech articles contain more than one variant, and (frankly) the Wiki format does not lend itself to being able to associate a 'Mech with a particular number and sort it in any meaningful way. BTW is not, and cannot be, a database or a spreadsheet. Perhaps the "Files" section could host one, but using categories is not a good way to handle this. --Scaletail 23:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Neufeld 12:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. You've echoed my thoughts exactly. ClanWolverine101 15:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Variants

Is there any reason why we can't post canon variants that may have been unique? I've seen this done on several mechs, but wanted to make sure it was considered okay. ClanWolverine101 19:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We've had a discussion about the difference between variants and unique configurations here, trying to decide how to treat the CN9-YLW: Talk:Centurion. Though I'll admit that the debate seems to lack a conclusion. Technically, each unique variant is a variant in its own right. But given the prolific authors we have, treating each customized ride as a varian will totally clutter the pages in no time; it doesn't feel right. As of yet, I am myself undecided on what the criteria are for a variant to be noteworthy. I guess it should be something that was either produced by the manufacturer, or a frequent and uniform field refit - but not just any customized variant. Frabby 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that if it has an official record sheet, it's worthy of mention. I like how this was handled on Jinggau and Dire Wolf (Daishi). --Scaletail 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scaletail on this. --Neufeld 07:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Since i've listed some of the "custom variants, I've noted them in the 'Mech articles' as a sub-section of Variants. Mentioning the pilot, if warrent and give its basic description of its origin. Then content what makes it custom, including its technology. Yen-Lo-Wang, is unique in comparison to other custom designs. Unlike most, it been featured in Battletech stories, since beginning Battletech, it still active in Dark age with a major character. I agree, sometime once the XTRO thing done, we may have mess to clean. According to Herb, only one of each design is going get the XTRO treatment. Jinggau has two unique variants one a prototype and another Rush Ion's personal ride he used during second WoB invasion. If we get more unique variants, i would list them more detail if the pilot/character has their own article. In TRO:3039, Banshee pilot of that era had customized Banshee, but no record sheet produced. So no listing. -- Wrangler 15:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. This is all pretty good. I ask because the "Turning Points" books all seem to have variants represented as custom, and I was thinking of sticking in the ones that haven't been addressed elsewhere.

As for Yen-Lo-Wang, I've stated it before : The 'mech should be described on the Centurion page, noting that it has been refitted multiple times. (We can certainly use the "Custom Variant" section noted above.) A separate article should be used to describe the greater history of the mech. ClanWolverine101 18:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody disagree with making a record sheet a requirement for description of a unique variant? --Scaletail 14:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this approach is helpful, given that TPTB still seem crank out new record sheets on a monthly basis. Following up on what I wrote above, I feel we should use Yen-Lo-Wang as an example how to treat uniques: If they're notable, they deserve their own article. The main model article would then briefly mention the unique variant and link to its own article. An own record sheed is probably a strong indication for being notable in this sense, but I wouldn't make it a requirement. On the other hand, I am loathe to clutter the pages with pointless listings of unique variants - even if they have a record sheet published. (Is Samsonov's Atlas variant from HTP:Galtor noteworthy? I doubt it. It certainly doesn't warrant its own article.) Frabby 15:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dropping the BV Portals

Scaletail knocked it around, and I'm running with with. I'm suggesting the total elimination of the BV Category Portals from the 'Mech articles. I have a number of reasons for this :

• Most mechs have a wide variety of BV ratings due to so many variants. You can't really divvy these up based on BV.
• While I acknowledge that people certainly USE BV, I don't think they break it up by categories like this. Maybe someone will go "Okay, I have 1900 points left - what's the best mech under that restriction?" Maybe they'll look at a list, or use a program that will sort all mechs and variants by BV. But I am dubious that this setup would be helpful.
• Aesthetically, its unpleasant. Yes, I like the faction portals, but I'm willing to discuss the possibility they may not be what's best. I feel the same way here.

Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 07:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, no one has opposed removing them, and people has supported it, so I guess that it's down to "Be bold". --Neufeld 10:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So, I decided to take care of the problem. Now we just need a mod to delete the leftover pages. --Neufeld 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Famous Pilots

How about a section--along with "description," etc.--entitled "notable pilots?" There, we could include info on famous (or infamous) MechWarriors. Scaletail 15:03, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I can agree with that. I don't want us to end up just copying the notable pilots out of the tros though. I would think pilots like Phelan Kell, Jamie Wolf, Victor Stiener Davion, etc. Those who are main storyline characters who are big wigs and would be known throughout the Inner Sphere, not just someone that is featured in a book and pilots a Wraith if you know what I mean. CJKeys 22:45, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I definitely would not want to just copy the featured pilots out of the Upgrade TROs. Most of them are not notable at all. I think any character that is notable enough to warrant a article devoted to them would also be worthy of being noted as a famous pilot (and I mean a real article like Peter S-D, not a one line blurb like Nonda Toolipi). I think that the 'Mechs that were used by Solaris champions can also be noted. Scaletail 08:35, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

So, akin to the Peder Smythe discussion: What counts as a sufficiently notable character? While I do agree that pointless nobodies from the TROs should not be included, I strongly feel that characters who do have an entry in this wiki should be crosslinked, and that anyone who features prominently in a novel, game, or sourcebook deserves mention. Mind, the mention of a given pilot in the 'Mech entry should be kept as short as possible, and link to the character's entry. But I think it does in fact belong there. Frabby 01:44, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

Similar to my opinion on that previous discussion, I do not think that BTW is a place for lists. Given that outcome of that discussion, I believe that our earlier notability requirement for a notable pilot needs to be tightened up, since any character can now have an article written about them. I'll agree with CJ's statement above that main characters should be included, although I would be slightly more inclusive in saying that any character who is the main character of a novel is notable enough to have a section written about them. --Scaletail 18:51, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

I do like the idea of notable pilots. I also believe they should be either extremely well known (ie Bounty Hunter, Kai Allard-Liao) or they should be the movers and shakers of the universe who like to run around in 'Mechs (Victor S-D, Theodore Kurita). As far as personell who are key to a novel....they may be notable in the novel, but they might not be more than an average pilot in not so average circumstances in respect to being a 'MechWarrior. I also would like to see the pilots get only a couple of sentences instead of a paragraph, as the reason they are notable should be found in the bulk of their own article, not within the BattleMechs article.CJ 23:34, 3 April 2008 (CDT)

I've recently begun taking this up myself. I've been careful not to go too far in designating 'notable pilots'. They must be 'famous' and they must be identified with the mech. Sun-Tzu Liao is a good rule of thumb. He's a major character in about 20 novels; we see him use a mech maybe twice. ClanWolverine101

I dragged this discussion back out of the archive, mainly because the troubles we ran into with One-EyedJack and Scaletail's most recent edit. I strongly, totally disagree with the approach that a notable character is only notable if he has an existing article here on BTW. That can't possibly be true; BTW isn't infallible and we lack a ton or two of articles on people and stuff. Conversely, most "notable pilots" from the TROs are nobodies, and most people on whom we have articles here wouldn't qualify either. So I'm suggesting my own definition here for discussion, before I edit Scaletail's version: I say a character is notable if he is a major BT character (i.e. known to most of the fanbase) and is associated with this particular 'Mech which he piloted more or less exclusively (many notable characters don't have a signature 'Mech). Frabby 14:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that Frabby. At the very least, there should be some sort of grace period. Most of us understand that there are many, many characters we consider famous who simply do not have articles up yet. This is not a reflection on those editors in the past; merely a statement that the "great work" is never truly done. Some of us who enjoy the "notable pilots" section are getting frustrated with having our work deleted, then having to write the articles, then having to go to the mech articles and redo the work we did. There are indications that this "policy" has frustrated a new editor to the point that he quit. This, in my mind, is a bad thing, and goes against the spirit of the policy.

Do I think Frabby's proposal is an excellent starting point? Yes. Do I think there should be exceptions? Yes. I know he only used a Hatchetman once (that we know about), but damn straight I went to the Hatchetman article and added Kai up there, with appropriate verbage from Twycross. Why? Because he killed 45 Clan Omnimechs in that mech! Because that's the battle where he became a legend. Stuff like that.

Why would anyone want to delete another editor's work just to support a policy that's completely arbitrary anyway? ClanWolverine101 15:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the list of notable pilots as a thing that is very similar to the year pages. The 'Mech articles are not meant to be character biographies, just as the year articles are not meant to be narratives. While I'm not generally in favor of forcing editors to contribute to the wiki in a particular fashion, is it really too much to ask somebody who thinks a character qualifies as "major" to also create an article for that character? I would also like to point out that, by CJ's definition, there are only a handful of major characters. The point is not that a character suddenly becomes notable when an article is written about them, but that an article should be the reference that a character used a certain 'Mech. --Scaletail 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Scaletail on this. How can a character that no one can bothered writing an article about be notable? --Neufeld 09:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would rather wonder why nobody wrote the article about, say, Michi Noketsuna yet... (notable Ostroc pilot up until Misery, became the Bounty Hunter later on) Frabby 11:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to side with Frabby on this, you folks are judging characters based on a fact that it hasn't been written yet, so why list it at all? Did any of you know Michi was the Bounty Hunter? There alot rich a notable characters out there, just because they're being listed for the FIRST time and in 'Mech file doesn't mean there won't be a big article coming up the pipe lines. -- Wrangler 11:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care for the Notable Warriors section. I think it's just a waste of space, but I'm willing to let the stuff be there. What I don't want to have is a paragraph of text about that warrior on the 'Mech page. That stuff should be on a separate page, either dedicated to the pilot (Victor Steiner-Davion) or possibly a big page that lists currently-minor characters (like the List of minor mercenary units page. (Once the character has more information they could be "promoted" to full page status, and fall under the Biographies project.))--Mbear 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are my points :

1) There are a flipping ton of legit "Notable" characters out there who either don't have an article, or didn't have one until just recently. If I may be so BOLD, I've written a few.

2) As such, defining who is and is not "notable" by whether or not they have their own article yet seems bunk to me.

3) TRULY notable characters do, in my opinion, add to the flavor of a mech article. Do you think more of the Warhammer because Natasha Kerensky used it? I do.

4) If anyone disagrees with anything an editor adds to an article, there are multiple pages to hash something like that out. i.e. "Dude, I really don't think so-and-so is notable..." Deleting someone else's work just so they have to write a stub-article, then making them go back and re-write their "Notable" entry doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the Five Pillars to me. (FYI - the "undo" feature doesn't always work.)

5) Based on this so-called "policy" I keep hearing about, I could go through the TROs and add all those "nobody" mechwarriors from the descriptions. I'll write a little stub article for each, then link them under "Notable" in the respective mech sections. It would be stupid, a waste of time, and probably aesthetically yucky. But it would be in line with the "policy", and therefore should not be zapped. (No, I'm not really going to do this. But it would make my point, wouldn't it?)

6) We have new editors coming to the wiki. This is a GOOD thing. They are not intruding on us. They are not defacing some sacred text. They should be treated with kid gloves. When I first joined five months ago, I did quite a few things that make me roll my eyes now. Rev and others treated me with kid gloves, so I stayed. I learned. I humbly submit I've written some pretty good articles, and made some valuable improvements to others. But that might not have happened if my first experience with the wiki was someone just deleting the work I had done based on an arbitrary policy that doesn't even make sense.

Does this make sense to people? ClanWolverine101 13:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your points make sense to me. I don't agree with all of them, but they make sense. One thing that I don't think as been mentioned is that adding the Notable Pilots section information directly to the page might make the entry too similar for CGL's comfort. --Mbear 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, in my opinion the content will be so different in 99% of the cases it will be a non-issue. ClanWolverine101 14:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course BTW is not complete. Nobody is saying that it is. What I have said before and will say again is that having an article about a character allows editors to establish a baseline for notability. Again, it's very similar to the year pages, where the information that establishes the subjects notability is included in its own article.

For the record, CW, editors have over and over again expressed that we do not want the "Notable Pilots" section to be ripped from the TROs, so, were you to do what you suggest, the content would eventually be removed. In addition, it would likely get you banned for disruptive editing. --Scaletail 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

... that's quite a threat, Scaletail. I did not realize that a single admin had that sort of authority. Noted.

Again : I suggested that course of action to prove a point - having an article entry about you should not be the end-all, be-all of what makes a mechwarrior "notable". As I said above, to actually do this would be a waste of time. (I do hope the other admins understood this fine distinction.)

Regarding the year pages: How many events and other items on those pages refer to redlinks? Things that don't have an article? I've seen quite a few. Now in most of those cases, the item is certainly noteworthy, and the relevant article simply hasn't been written yet. To me, that's perfectly acceptable. Seeing a redlink to something that IS notable should encourage us to go : "Hey! I should write that article. Or at least put up a stub, maybe..." I know that's been the case with myself a number of times. I see a redlink to a character or other item that I'm very familiar with and I'm very certain should have its article ~ and then I write it. Or at least put up a stub. (I've actually spent the last few days writing a new article about a character I consider VERY notable, who at the moment is showing up as red-links all over the place. Hope to have it ready tonight.) My point is that having a written article linked does not seem to be the standard we use for the Year pages.

For the record, I'm encouraged that bringing this issue up has facilitated (mostly constructive) conversation. ClanWolverine101 15:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, stepping in here: CW, assuming something did not occur that I am unaware of and this is a hypothetical discussion, I believe Scaletail was not directing any threats at you. In fact, it may have been better worded as a possible reaction to a fictional editor's edits that consistently went against wiki consensus (in the form of policy). If this editor refused to acknowledge what the majority of the editors thought was best practice, then that solitary editor was attempting to shape the grand project into only his image and that would not stand. In that case, if arbitration and dialogue by both editors and eventually admins (editors wearing admin hats) failed to bring the solitary editor onto the team, then consensus would suggest his edits were disruptive and an admin would use the ban hammer (most likely after conferring with other admins). We have not experienced that here yet, but we will, I'm sure.

But again, I'm fairly certain Scaletail did not mean that to be directed at you. It was probably just poor word choice.

We're all working towards the same goal here. In this case, I'd ask each of you to take a extra effort to reconsider what the other has said, with that goal in mind. I could have more to say about the reference of the Year pages, but I'll hold off until I'm sure we're all working together here. Thanks, both. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable Pilots Sample page

In a comment above, I mentioned a possible solution: Create a separate page that lists the notable warriors from each technical readout on their own page. The page would be linked to from the Notable Pilots section of the BattleMech page. A well known warrior (Natasha Kerensky, Hohiro Kurita) would link directly to the appropriate page, but the notable pilots who are currently minor characters could be listed on this page.

Advantages:

1. New editors will not have their content deleted, but moved.
2. Allows for fluff/flavor text to be added without affecting main article.
3. We can use these entries as starter text for expanded articles.
4. Nobody gets upset because their text is gone.

I've just completed a sample: User:Mbear/NotablePilots. Please comment and let me know what you think: Would something like this serve as an acceptable compromise between "No Notable Pilots" and "Not Notable Enough"?--Mbear 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats going be a mess of people on one page. Are you going divide these notable pilots with BattleMech their associated with or they all going be clumped together? I won't want them clumbed, it be too messy for a reader to get thought it. I had figured notable pilots would get one or two sentences that IT. As side note, major character prior to the Upgrade books were not notable, since many of them weren't even MechWarriors of skill. Many of notables were fantasticly skilled, or had done something to be well noted. One or two lines mention is all they should get if this notable pilot thing expands. -- Wrangler 14:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point I haven't thought about how to organize it beyond the single page. I'm just trying to resolve this festering sore. Both sides (no pilots|notable pilots) have good arguments and this is my attempt to please both groups. If there's a consensus that this compromise has merit, we can probably break it down further (A-K on one page, L-Z on another?).

“

I had figured notable pilots would get one or two sentences that IT.

”

OK, but until you said that, I had no idea how much info you were planning on adding to the page. Others may go crazy and add several paragraphs about the pilot.

“

As side note, major character prior to the Upgrade books were not notable, since many of them weren't even MechWarriors of skill. Many of notables were fantasticly skilled, or had done something to be well noted.

”

True, but I don't think the major character's skills are really relevant here. They've got their own pages, so they'll be fine. My focus was on bringing the "notable pilots" to the page without adding a lot of material that isn't directly relevant to the 'Mech. (So John Doe piloted the 'Mech. Big deal. That doesn't say anything about the 'Mech other than John Doe piloted it. Info RE: John Doe shouldn't be on the 'Mech page, IMO.)--Mbear 14:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it, I hope finally this grievous diskussion comes to an end. It is a good compromiss, when no character articles exist, then i put it on this page, where is the problem. Good job Mbear.--Doneve 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the intent is commendable. It might be considerably more elaborate than I would prefer and maybe defeats the purpose for not being on the page, but if a compromise is the only way to bring peace to the wiki, so be it. ClanWolverine101 14:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My goals for this compromise:

Move the Notable Pilots off the main 'Mech page 

They're characters, so they should get their own page, but they're even more minor than the minor characters, so they don't meet the notability guidelines and therefore shouldn't get their own page. Catch-22.

Keep Nic (and the rest of us) from making the unit entries too much like the TRO's.

Don't want to upset CGL. My concern with putting a lot of Notable pilot info on the page is a new editor might just copy and paste the entry directly from the TRO entry to the section, which is plagiarism and can get us in a lot of trouble.

Resolve this issue once and for all.

I have seen this issue come up several times in the past, and everyone involved gets really excited about it. In fact, I'd go so far as to call it the most controversial issue on Sarna. My hope is that this compromise will allow us to put this thing to rest once and for all, and get us back to the fun stuff (however you define it).

--Mbear 15:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing that I didn't make clear (and thanks to ClanWolverine101 for pointing this out): My fault for not explaining. I would have a "Notable Pilot" section on the 'Mech page. Underneath it would be a comma separated list of well known pilots. So the Warhammer page would have something like:

It made much more sense when I re-read it. I think its a pretty good idea. ClanWolverine101 16:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable Pilots

Well known pilots of the Warhammer include: Yoriniga Kurita, Natasha Kerensky, Jon Doe, and Some Random Guy I Can't Remember.

The links for Yoriniga and Natasha would point to their articles, while the last two would point to the appropriate part of the List of Notable Pilots page. There's really no other way to create the appropriate link structure, no matter how hard I try.--Mbear 15:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I don't like the idea of creating a sub-page. For me, sub-pages are something to avoid as a matter of principle. Also, I don't get why you wouldn't simply create (possibly stub) articles for Jon Doe and your random guy, and write whatever you were going to write on the sub-page into these articles?

Somebody said somewhere that the "Notable Pilots" section is/should be akin to the year pages. That is a good approach: There should be the name with a link to that pilot's entry (redlink or no), and a one-liner about him. If I really want to know why Jon Does is a notable Warhammer pilot then I can always follow the link, after all, and read his article. Frabby 16:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And then we are back at the redlink issue, where I can't follow the link and know why he's notable. --Neufeld 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what the Notable Pilots page I prototyped is supposed to fix. It provides a single place for all the Notable Pilots who aren't otherwise notable.--Mbear 18:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And it's not a sub-page of the 'Mech. It's a completely separate page that gathers every "Notable Pilot" who isn't a Major Character.--Mbear 18:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Frabby, my comparison to year articles was in reference to the fact that information included in year articles must have a cited reference in a linked article. So a redlink would be insufficient. --Scaletail 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable Pilots (Second try to explain what I mean.)

Well known pilots of the Warhammer include: Yorinaga Kurita, Natasha Kerensky, Jon Doe, and Some Random Guy I Can't Remember.

The links for Yoriniga and Natasha point to their articles, while the last two point to the appropriate part of the List of Notable Pilots page. Please follow the links to see what I mean.--Mbear 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you try to solve the wrong problem. It isn't Jon Doe or Some Random Guy that are the problem, it is the missing Nastys' and Yorinagas' articles. --Neufeld 19:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Neufeld. Couldn't agree more. Frabby 09:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats the issue? Lack of the notable famous characters? Weither "famous" warrior associate with the 'Mech article should remain on the article verse no bodies who are destined for the notable pilots page? Why don't we just leave main spine characters with one or with mech article and forget about the minor no-bodies. Its this notable pilot feud is going no where. -- Wrangler 10:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My absence aside, I've stayed removed from this discussion over the long term because I have no position for or against notables on the 'Mech article. I think Scaletail rang true by referencing the Year pages as a guideline for notability standards (where notability is defined by available information on this wiki), but I also think Mbear's suggested solution is probably the first real workable step we've seen in solving this. Yes, it may appear that we're turning in circles, but we don't give into the frustration, for there is no answer there.

Is the compromise here that in order for a pilot to be notable 'enough' that the Editor making the simple edit of adding the name also be expected to write at the very least an identifying statement ala Mbear's idea? Yes, there are some major characters that don't yet have articles, but if Revanche the Editor feels Major Character A deserves recognition as a notable pilot for Mech Mark 3, then shouldn't it stand that Revanche be expected to write a statement on the List of Notable Pilots if he doesn't feel like starting a full-on article for the same person?

I agree that no contributions of substance should be removed from the wiki, if a compromise can be made. But I'd also would be realistic and say that if the sole contribution that Revanche the Editor felt he had to make on a particular subject was a red-link notable, in that he couldn't even make a short statement about the character for the List of Notable Pilots, then no information is really lost if deleted.

To be clear, I would support the inclusion of a 2-3 sentence statement about Aleksandr Kerensky himself on the List of Notable Pilots, if he did not yet have a full article. Inclusion on the List of Notable Pilots is a suitable compromise, in my opinion, for a major character that has not yet been otherwise graced with an article.

What it boils down to here, is that a signficant problem has a potential solution with Mbear's idea. Its not perfect (sorry, Mbear), but that's because it doesn't completely address each & everyone's personal standards they seek for this wiki. However, its perfect in attempting to meet the philosophy of consensus, which is valued. Who can bend a bit to meet it?

Let's discuss a bit more people's concerns, see if we can address and compromise in an attempt to meet them and then vote on the solution we come up with. I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't a version of Mbear's idea (but do remain open minded).--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rev - For my own two cents, I'm fine with it either way. If you think the "Notable Pilots" section under "Wolfhound" should include not only Phaelan Kell's name but also a sentence or two about who he was and what he did with his Wolfhound, I'm totally cool with that. I think that's the sort of thing we've been doing for the most part. Likewise, if we applied all or part of Mbear's idea, I wouldn't mind that either.

My issue is when someone puts substantial effort into an otherwise worthy edit, only to have their work deleted simply because the subject of the item redlinks. No conversation or discussion - simply "I get to delete your work because the old consensus says so." Mind you - if somebody hits up a Talk page and says "Hey - John Smith may have piloted a Locust for 20 years, but I don't think he's worthy of being notable in the Locust article..." that's totally cool. Talk. Hash. Compromise. Whatever. I'm totally fine with that. But suppose John Smith has an article entry and Phaelan Kell doesn't. So John Smith is notable and Phaelan Kell isn't?

That's all I'm saying. I don't like it when my hard work is destroyed. Neither does One-EyedJack. I think most of us feel that way. ClanWolverine101 02:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy this and I can understand it. If that does happen, I would expect the 'offended' party would open up dialogue with the deleting editor on that editor's talk page, for the purposes of exploring and working out the actions taken previously. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is what I've done in the past. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 03:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mbear's proposal is to have a section about Notable Pilots for certain 'Mech models that warrant them, with the stipulation that 1) no information about the pilot other than name is provided within the 'Mech article and 2) that no redlinks be allowed within this Notable Pilots section. Post your concerns here:

So Rev, your proposing that any notable pilot listed in a respective 'Mech article, must have some kind of actual article about the pilot themselves. When listing these pilots in the 'Mech list, then they should only have the name itself and nothing more. Correct? -- Wrangler 02:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrangler, while I didn't think it was my proposal (it was what I culled from the discussions...late to the party, sorry), yes (in regards to no information about the pilot).

"Well-known pilots of the Warhammer include: Notable Pilot Alfred, Notable Pilot Beverly". The link either points to a dedicated article on the character OR to an entry on the List of Notable Pilots page. The question posted here is: what problems does this cause?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, what comes to my mind is the risk that characters that needs their own articles ends up woolgathering in the List. The second risk is that whatever feats a character did in a mech aren't transfered to that character's page. The third issue, if that info is transfered to the character's page, where do we insert it? A separate section or bake it into the character history? --Neufeld 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Neufeld, I think the "woolgathering in the list" problem could be countered by:

1. adding a sectionstub tag.
2. add a message like this to the top of the list: "If you have more information about a character on this list please feel free to expand their entry or move it to a new page." (This text could also be added under each of the letters so an editor is sure to see it.)

The "where do we put the information" question could be solved by either of the methods you mention. I'd delegate that decision to the Biography wikiproject team as it seems more appropriate to discuss it there.--Mbear 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

One problem that comes to my mind was mentioned earlier: Eventually there will be a lot of names on that list. But we can figure out some way of solving that problem once this is settled.--Mbear 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that those concerns are more of a biography issue, rather than a 'Mech article issue, unless you (Neufeld) feel that the issue we're causing biographies is greater than the issue we're addressing here. Aaah, growing pains. While painful, still a good sign for the wiki. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how the changes are done. If someone just deletes the fluff text in the mech article without moving it to the character article, then we have a problem and probably pissed off editors. --Neufeld 07:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I know is damning to have stuff deleted, i've had that happen to me as well. What can you do? Policy is policy. We will find a solution, but there something going happen along the way. Right now, if there no article on the pilot, there listing for them pilot. That how looks right now unless Mbear's list of minior notable pilots will be implimented. -- Wrangler 16:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any great interest in listing the "minor" pilots. I'm also flexible on how much text each noted pilot should get - anywhere from zero to three sentences, I guess - I'm not picky. My issue is deleting someone's work with the blind justification of supporting a policy that essentially claims that anyone "famous" already has an article. From what I can tell, most people think that's ridiculous. ClanWolverine101 19:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so that's addressed with Mbear's solution then, as instead of deletion it gets moved. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So, Editors that mistakenly add it to the 'Mech page will now be prompted to move their material to the List page or will have it moved for them by other Editors. Moving on: what other issues can people identify as being possible problems?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Training editors in linking to the correct part of the List of Notable Pilots page.
2. Organization of list - A generic alphabetical list is OK, but some people might want it organized by faction.
3. Page size - Master Unit List version 1.66 shows over 4000 entries. If every unit has a single notable pilot, then there could be 4000 entries on this page. Major characters will thin this out slightly, but the list is still going to be large.
4. References - The list of references is going to get very long.--Mbear 19:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur.

If I may, I'd suggest starting a new topic area (if that makes sense?) so the current discussion is better organized? ClanWolverine101 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Variant format

I am proposing a tweak to the variant format because the way they are currently arrayed is sometimes confusing. Under the "Variants" section, there should be sub-sections for each era that a specific variant dates from. Currently, variants for 'Mechs such as Warhammer are confusing because variants from later eras are alphanumerically before earlier variants, leading to a description of the Stealth Armor Warhammer before other Succession Wars era variants.

I've modified one of my custom 'Mech articles, Crusher, as an example of what this would look like. Prior to this, the -2B variant referred to the -2L as its antecedent, but it was listed before that variant. Now, it is organized in a way that makes more sense. --Scaletail 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the notion that alphanumerical sorting may not be optimal. Eras is a step in the right direction (order of appearance), but I'd say year of introduction is what we should really aim for. But I also suggest we don't implement any changes here until the final, official version of the MUL is released. It will then contain both all variants and their respective introduction dates. Frabby 15:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree for one reason and one reason only : In many cases, we simply don't KNOW which variant came out first. That's all. ClanWolverine101 15:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Frabby's point is that, with the MUL, we will. I was looking for a solution that could be implemented now, but I am agreeable to that. --Scaletail 15:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good in principle, but there has to be a cut-off, because we don't truly know the Age of War stats for 'Mechs like the original Wasp, yet according to MUL that's what we'll have to change the article too. Cyc 22:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It has the stats that are in published material like TRO3039, unless TPTB says differently. Don't waste time speculating about future retcons, we deal with them when they appear. --Neufeld 09:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Trimming this article

Question : Who has the authority to trim this article? Only the Admins, or may Editors do so as well? Understand : I have no intention whatsoever of removing ANY of the active topics that may be relevant to current consensus discussions. I'm simply thinking if we removed those items that are clearly inactive and not an open issue, we'd trim this page by quite a bit.

And yes - I realize that THIS item has made the page longer. The irony is not lost on me. ClanWolverine101 03:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be archived. We have no policy on the matter, on the wiki or in this project. I say it falls under "if it needs scratching..." Let me know if you would like assistance in doing so. ;-) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should achieve things instead by year, subject. I don't know if Alphabetical order will work. I'm suggesting not by year only because same problems with subjects keep coming up like the notable pilots. -- Wrangler 16:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rev - Yeah... I can't seem to find the how-to on archiving. Can you give me some instruction? ClanWolverine101 17:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus : Notable Pilot Sections

I would like to submit the following points :

1) In the discussions above, it seems clear that a majority of editors (and admins!) do not agree with the sentiment that if a character does yet have his own article, then the "Notable Pilots" reference should be deleted.

2) Further, that a majority of editors and admins do not seem to agree that a lack of article automatically disqualifies a character from "notable" consideration.

3) The current proposal policy, while it certainly shows promise, doesn't seem to be totally nailed down yet, and is still being discussed and fine-tuned. Understand, this is not an opinion on Mbear's proposal. I actually hope it eventually passes. Its a simple acknowledgment that it hasn't happened yet.

4) Leaving the old "policy", whereby editors were encouraged to delete the other editor's work arbitrarily, would be against the spirit of the Five Pillars policy. It would discourage editors young and old from making contributions, fearful that their work would be deleted over an arbitrary policy that they know nothing about and doesn't make any sense anyway.

To that end, I am formally proposing that this old policy be dropped. Once upon a time, I'm certain it seemed like the best compromise available. At this point, that time has come and gone. Its a bad policy. It has led to frustrations, bad blood, time wasted, and at least one editor declaring they were quitting. To defend such a policy on the basis of "well, its what we've been doing" would be irresponsible. So - that's what I'm floating. I feel my four points above are valid. I feel that's where the "pulse" is. Can't fight the future. ClanWolverine101 20:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Random Battlemech?

In the side bar there is the random page option that navigates you to any page in the entire wiki (as far as I'm aware). Now i have no idea how, but would it be possible to add a similar function to the BattleMech Portal to randomly select a battlemech entry? Although it may not be entirely relevant nor required, I think it could make the Portal potentially more useful.

Mop no more 10:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)