Discussion: Edit

Editing BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

This page is not enabled for semantic in-text annotations due to namespace restrictions. Details about how to enable the namespace can be found on the configuration help page.

Latest revision Your text
Line 184: Line 184:
 
::::::Scaletail, I find your use of the M-16 analogy is germaine, and I think that is how the issue would be settled on Wikipedia. However, I think what Cameron is addressing is the intent to include all information that we provide in the infoboxes for each variant, with the posed question of how best to do so. Up until now, I felt having a sub-page with its sparse info was far better than having a huge main article with repeating infoboxes running down the right length. However, I think I may have a compromise: an abbreviated infobox that cuts out the general data that applies to all of a variant and the picture, and only lists the data that would be modified (weapons, BV2, cost, release date, etc.). You'll still have a column of infoboxes, but at least all of the displayed data would be relevant. (I say this as a non-P:BM member, and if the consensus is to leave the articles as they are, so be it. However, any sea-changes should be considered in light of similar other projects.)
 
::::::Scaletail, I find your use of the M-16 analogy is germaine, and I think that is how the issue would be settled on Wikipedia. However, I think what Cameron is addressing is the intent to include all information that we provide in the infoboxes for each variant, with the posed question of how best to do so. Up until now, I felt having a sub-page with its sparse info was far better than having a huge main article with repeating infoboxes running down the right length. However, I think I may have a compromise: an abbreviated infobox that cuts out the general data that applies to all of a variant and the picture, and only lists the data that would be modified (weapons, BV2, cost, release date, etc.). You'll still have a column of infoboxes, but at least all of the displayed data would be relevant. (I say this as a non-P:BM member, and if the consensus is to leave the articles as they are, so be it. However, any sea-changes should be considered in light of similar other projects.)
 
::::::Cameron, it would be helpful for you to weigh back in here with any comments you may have. I have no bone to pick one way or the other, but seek consistency and simplicity throughout the BTW project.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::Cameron, it would be helpful for you to weigh back in here with any comments you may have. I have no bone to pick one way or the other, but seek consistency and simplicity throughout the BTW project.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 
 
== Project Units? ==
 
 
Given that most of the BattleMech articles have been completed, I was wondering what the project's members thought about expanding the scope of it. Obviously, work will still need to be done on the 'Mech articles long after all the ones that are currently in existence have articles, but I believe that the standards created here can be applied to almost any unit. For this reason, I propose expanding Project BattleMechs into "Project Units" (the name is certainly not set in stone), under which all articles for units would fall. This would include 'Mechs, combat vehicles, aerospace fighters, JumpShips, DropShips, WarShips, ProtoMechs, and battle armor. I believe the main advantages of this would be using what has already been done on the BattleMech articles to create new unit articles without having to reinvent the wheel, as well as presenting a unified feel for all articles on units. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 11:08, 21 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
:I absolutely agree. You guys accomplished so much while I was deployed, it is simply amazing. Its got my support. (Guess the project would need a new user banner.) --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:10, 21 December 2007 (CST)
 
 
 
==TRO 3039 Variants==
 
I searched for two 'Mech variants(COM-1D Commando & FS9-K Firestarter)and both are missing, both appeared for the first time in the TRO3039. Are the new 'Mechs/variants from the TRO3039 not yet entered?--[[User:BigDuke66|BigDuke66]] 13:44, 15 June 2009 (PDT)
 
:If they're in 3039, then they should be in the article. Feel free to update the article accordingly. Good catch. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:17, 15 June 2009 (PDT)
 
 
 
==New Category?==
 
Do we have a separate category tag for BattleMechs and variants exclusively produced for Royal BattleMech Regiments, like the EMP-6A ''[[Emperor]]'' or the MAD-1R ''[[Marauder]]''?  Thanks--[[User:S.gage|S.gage]] 21:22 (EDT) 12 August 2009
 
 
:No. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 
 
== C3i Mechs ==
 
 
Question : Should all C3i Mechs be assumed to be either WoB or Comstar? They are the only groups known to use it, IIRC. I ask because I was thinking of going through the C3i category and distribute them accordingly (sometimes both Comstar and WoB). [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]]
 
 
==Armor Tonnages==
 
Revanche suggeste that I drop this idea here, so here goes.
 
<br />Basically, i'd like to add the tonnage of a mechs armor to the infobox.  For example, with an ''Atlas'', the armor section of the info box would say
 
"Armor: 19 tons of duralex heavy special". Unfortunatly I only have the 3050/3055 TRO's so I would need a fair bit of help to get all the mechs completed.
 
If anyone thinks it's worth it and can help out with it, it would be much appreciated.
 
[[User:Mop no more|Mop no more]] 01:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:I don't disagree with your idea, but I would point out that the infoboxes don't cover the variants, just the originals. So with the Atlas, you'd be looking at whatever they were using in the 3025 TRO. (Which was probably still duralex heavy special.) Also : note the huge difference in armor value if you use a variation of Ferro-Fibrous. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]]
 
 
::That's not really my point. My idea is simply to add whatever tonnage of armour the mech carries, to the infobox. Variants could then easily say ".... Drops two tons of armour" or say that the variant now mounts ferro-fibrous. I'm not focusing so much on the actual point value being added, just the tonnage. It is considerably easier to work out the point value then when compared to having no tonnage mentioned at all.
 
::Does that make sense? [[User:Mop no more|Mop no more]] 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:::Sure. I'm all for adding more game info to the infoboxes. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]]
 
 
::::Great. In that case, I'll Try it out on the ''Atlas'' and unless i get a negative response within a few days, I'll start adding it to the [[3050]]/[[3055]] mechs that i can.{{Unsigned|Mop no more|02:36, 9 March 2010  }}
 
 
:::::Ok, I have started adding the tonnage of armor to the mechs infobox's seeing as i've recieved no negative feedback. If anyone can help, please help by all means. this could take quite a while on my own... [[User:Mop no more|Mop no more]] 07:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 
 
::::::Sorry about the late response. I was taking a break and noticed your edits before this discussion. I don't like the idea of changing this, primarily because we're trying to keep to the look of the TROs in the InfoBox and this is a deviation from that. In many cases, the information is already given in the body of the article.
 
::::::I would also like to address something else you have said, though it doesn't directly impact this discussion. We have wanted to avoid people being able to create record sheets based upon the information contained in these articles, especially with regards to a few aspects of every design, such as the "point value" of the armor. Some aspects of the 'Mech articles are written deliberately vague, e.g. "as much armor as it's weight can hold", rather than giving a specific number. Most articles also don't list the number of heat sinks for a similar reason. In essence, this is because this website is on a relatively shaky legal ground and we'd like to avoid giving anybody official a reason to care enough to shut us down. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 
 
::::::: Okay. I see your point there. I'll go and change back the articles I've already done then if they haven't already been fixed by someone else. Thanks for letting me know in time, i was about to finish off both of the TRO's that i own this weekend. {{unsigned|Mop no more|on 19 March 2010}}
 

Please note that all contributions to BattleTechWiki are considered to be released under the GNU FDL 1.2 (see BattleTechWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To edit this page, please answer the question that appears below (more info):

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Advanced templates:

Editing: {{Merge}}   {{Moratorium}}   {{Otheruses| | | }}

Notices: {{NoEdit}}   {{Sign}}   {{Unsigned|name}}   {{Welcome}}

Administration: {{Essay}}   {{Policy}}   {{Procedure}}

Templates used on this page: