BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive
Sarna News
Contents
New Mechs to be Added
- I noticed the Mad Cat on the listing of new 'Mechs to be done. Personally I am planning on runing all the way through to the endo fo 3067 doign the Inner SPhere 'Mechs first and then doing the Clan 'Mechs. This is more personal preference but I am also waiting to see if the Clan and Inner Sphere weapons are doen the same or seperately. Also I woudl like to reference everyoen to the lists Inner Sphere Mechs and Clan Mechs as the Clan omnis, with thier two names, have been set up with links under both names in one link to make it work out a bit easier to catalogue them and to make sure the naming conventions are roughly standardized. Also I want to see abotu getting the weapons set up as well as the clans and inner sphere have ER Medium Lasers and if we can set up one article with information for both versions and an infobox for the clan and Inner SPhere versions it woudl be great. Thank you.--CJKeys 22:49, 16 November 2006 (CST)
- Yeah, you're right about the weapons. Personally, unless someone takes the weapons project and runs with it, I don't see myself doing anything before Tech Manual comes out. I'll be getting my mitts on it as soon as it does become available, but I'm hoping to glean some inspiration for it. But...yeah...we do need to move on that, so that 'Mechs become more valuable a resource. --Revanche (admin) 22:54, 16 November 2006 (CST)
- If we want to do the Clan machines someone has got to do it. I will start runing through and doing those this weekendas I have finished up the assaults for 3055 and I will make drafts for the 3055 solaris machines while Im doing that as well and hopefully can post all the solaris machines in 1 batch.--CJKeys 23:13, 16 November 2006 (CST)
- Ah, sorry if I was throwing a spanner in the works by adding the Mad Cat to the list; I wasn't aware you were doing them in batches. While I'm not overly fussed about the Mad Cat, it is relatively infamous… sort of like the Clans' poster boy. Xoid 05:38, 17 November 2006 (CST)
- I know, its no big deal. I will get to it when I do, which at this rate wont be too long as Im done with the 3055 assault 'Mechs. I may wait on the Solaris ones and go straight into TRO 3058 as I need to get the new mappack solaris to really nwo what im talkign abotu on some of the solaris equipment. I am hoping to have more info on the 'Mech by the time I get to it instead of all the manufacturing information being listed as unkown as I believe there is supposed to be a 3050U in the works. So I am also kind of stalling for time.--CJKeys 06:54, 17 November 2006 (CST)
Articles: base model only or all variants?
- First, should we aim (not start out) having an article for each 'Mech type and variant? What I mean is, while each article also includes a very brief write-up of each variant, the link within that write-up takes you to that variant's article. Pro: specific infobox/article (and pic, for the Phoenix units) for each 'Mech. I'm also thinking there's no reason not to post the HeavyMetal record sheets, if we do this. Con: a lot more articles to write. --Revanche 14:19, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
- On this subject I would have to say that there are some major pros and cons. I know that writing up the initial 'Mech articles themselves vary in thier degree of difficulty due to the fact that the 'Mechs sometimes have one or two varaints and other times they have ten or twelve varaints. I have mentioned before that I began witht he writing style used for military vehicles on wiki. In that format unles there is a major difference, like say between the Blackjack BattleMech and Blackjack OmniMech, the variation of the basic design gets a small blurb describing the changes and the article moves on. Either way I can live with but I will say that simply doing the base models along with varaint info alone can be very time intensive, especialy on the older 'Mechs with tons of variants. Anyway. I just thought I woudl share my thoughts with you on this subject. --CJKeys 09:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- Well, since there's the only the two of us on this Project, and after reading what you had to say about the numbers of variants involved, I feel inspired to table this. When most/all of BattleTechs base-model 'Mechs have been written, then the Project, with all of its members, can re-consider it. Agree? --Revanche 10:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- In the later stages, once we have all the base models done I can see us doing a page for every varaint. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- I was planning on using the mech data HTMLs I previously generated on Sarna.net to create articles for each variant. I like the pages such as Assassin how they are now -- in addition to those, I would be auto-generating articles such as ASN-23 Assassin. Nicjansma 00:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
- In the later stages, once we have all the base models done I can see us doing a page for every varaint. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- Well, since there's the only the two of us on this Project, and after reading what you had to say about the numbers of variants involved, I feel inspired to table this. When most/all of BattleTechs base-model 'Mechs have been written, then the Project, with all of its members, can re-consider it. Agree? --Revanche 10:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- On this subject I would have to say that there are some major pros and cons. I know that writing up the initial 'Mech articles themselves vary in thier degree of difficulty due to the fact that the 'Mechs sometimes have one or two varaints and other times they have ten or twelve varaints. I have mentioned before that I began witht he writing style used for military vehicles on wiki. In that format unles there is a major difference, like say between the Blackjack BattleMech and Blackjack OmniMech, the variation of the basic design gets a small blurb describing the changes and the article moves on. Either way I can live with but I will say that simply doing the base models along with varaint info alone can be very time intensive, especialy on the older 'Mechs with tons of variants. Anyway. I just thought I woudl share my thoughts with you on this subject. --CJKeys 09:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- Consensus has us tabling this until the Project has hit the Base Model Articles milestone. Thanks. --Revanche 00:24, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
Separate Articles Based on Universe?
- Second issue: should there be some category difference between the gaming universes? That is, should there be CBT 'Mechs, MWDA 'Mechs, Game 'Mech categories? Some units cross between 'verses. --Revanche 14:19, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
- There shouldnt be a difference. Allready sevral of the 'Mechs I have written up have varaints listed from Record Sheets: Mechwarrior Dark Age. Unfortunately with many of the newer 'Mechs in MWDA, because of the roster card system, we do not in many cases have information as to what varaint is the baseline chassis which can make knowing what is and isn't a varaint somewhat hard. Eventually CBT and MWDA will have to catch up and when they do we will have tons of information, Until that point though information is limited. I could see some kind of stub like article that covers the basics about the design but to do an infobox on the MWDA units, unless they were in RS:MWDA1, in which case there is usually enough info to tell which is the base model based on designation numbers as well as the fact that there is information from the cards providing manufacturer and fluff info. --CJKeys 09:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- Okay, I understand and it makes sense. However, then, maybe we should include categories at the bottom of articles where there are MWDA/CCG/Video Game variants listed? --Revanche 10:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- Well as far as MWDA varaits, Most of them can be translated strignt from the MWDA source with only placement guessing if it is an existing mech with a few exceptions. As far as video game variants....Unfortunately I really never looked too har at the varaints in the games except to find flaws to fix while playing and some of them use such an abstract system, such as Mechcommander 2, to be nearly impossible to translate into the format of already existing TRO style info without being extremely vague. As far as CCG variants I wasnt aware that there were any variants unique to the CCG though there may have been and I am just unaware of thier existance. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- But isn't it true that only some of the CBT base models are represented in the other 'verses? If so, we could add categories, like Category:MWDA 'Mechs and Category:CCG 'Mechs to each of the base models where a variant is represented. --Revanche 00:26, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
- Well as far as MWDA varaits, Most of them can be translated strignt from the MWDA source with only placement guessing if it is an existing mech with a few exceptions. As far as video game variants....Unfortunately I really never looked too har at the varaints in the games except to find flaws to fix while playing and some of them use such an abstract system, such as Mechcommander 2, to be nearly impossible to translate into the format of already existing TRO style info without being extremely vague. As far as CCG variants I wasnt aware that there were any variants unique to the CCG though there may have been and I am just unaware of thier existance. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- Okay, I understand and it makes sense. However, then, maybe we should include categories at the bottom of articles where there are MWDA/CCG/Video Game variants listed? --Revanche 10:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- There shouldnt be a difference. Allready sevral of the 'Mechs I have written up have varaints listed from Record Sheets: Mechwarrior Dark Age. Unfortunately with many of the newer 'Mechs in MWDA, because of the roster card system, we do not in many cases have information as to what varaint is the baseline chassis which can make knowing what is and isn't a varaint somewhat hard. Eventually CBT and MWDA will have to catch up and when they do we will have tons of information, Until that point though information is limited. I could see some kind of stub like article that covers the basics about the design but to do an infobox on the MWDA units, unless they were in RS:MWDA1, in which case there is usually enough info to tell which is the base model based on designation numbers as well as the fact that there is information from the cards providing manufacturer and fluff info. --CJKeys 09:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
Cost Included?
- I'd like to add the Cost summary for the base model to the InfoBox (thining in the Production Information part). How do you feel about that? And, if for it, should we also add it for the variants, after the BV? --Revanche 15:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- Cost woudl be cool both in the base model box and the varaits. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- Consensus has Cost as a new table to be added to the BattleMech InfoBox. --Revanche 00:27, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
TRO in HTML form
- We nearly easily have the capbility of adding in the TRO information, as printed out by HMP. Since BTW is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all things BattleTech, I think we should include it. However, I say that with caveats: a) I don't think we should do it now, but after a majority of articles have been completed, b) 'they should only have been added for 'Mechs that have been public a year (significant grace period) abd c), the conversion from HTML to Wiki is not perfect. Each table within the TRO would require some formatting. I feel this is perfectly acceptable,, since Rick jumped thru so many hoops to get HMPro, with its HTML export feature, approved. (I'd draw the line at the fluff, as we're re-writing it already and I like how its being done.) So, is this (the HMP TROs) something we should add to the Scope of the Project? --Revanche 15:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- In the later stanges, maybe when we start to go to making a page for each variant?? --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- Ok, I see what you're saying. When we move past the initial milestone, we'll add meat to each new article by breaking out the variants and adding the TROs. Good idea. One-stop combined milestone. --Revanche 00:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
- In the later stanges, maybe when we start to go to making a page for each variant?? --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
Omnis in the title
- Good catch with the omnis (Firestarter, Blackjack), CJKeys. We don't need those ambiguations. Question for you: should we put the term Omni in paranthesis in the title, like Guardian (Conventional Fighter) is handled? --Revanche 09:03, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
- Either way works for me. Personally I would be incleaned to leave it as is but just let me know how you think it would best work. I know the only time it really becomes an issue is when you have an omni and a standard 'Mech of the same name. Kinda liek the planet/MEch with the same name issue that first cropped up when I ported my stuff over from battletech wikia.--CJKeys 22:25, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
- Yeah, I can see your point. I would say leave regular BMs as their name, but omnis that have regular BM counterparts would have (Omni) after their name. (Also, we should add "Category:Omni" to them also.) --Revanche (admin) 00:40, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
- Either way works for me. Personally I would be incleaned to leave it as is but just let me know how you think it would best work. I know the only time it really becomes an issue is when you have an omni and a standard 'Mech of the same name. Kinda liek the planet/MEch with the same name issue that first cropped up when I ported my stuff over from battletech wikia.--CJKeys 22:25, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
BattleMech Portal
(transferred to the BattleMech Portal discussion page)
Reference Section Ordering
- I really should have brought this up here first, since it is a team project, but I've started re-ordering the references, from the current state of chronological to alphabetical. My reasoning is that it is not clear to the casual (non-Project BattleMech member) Editor if the chronological is by book publishing or era and ordering by alphabetical seems natural to me. I hope that's not a problem with you, CJ, but if it is let me know and we'll discuss. I'm not asking you to go back to the established articles to do this, either, as I'm hitting them as I add in the TRO references from my current book project. --Revanche (admin) 12:24, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
- I noticed you were doing that and since have made changes to the way I order my references so that they match. Thanks for the heads up on that though. --CJKeys 21:44, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
- Great and thanks. We work well together. Now, just to get some more people on baord! --Revanche (admin) 23:01, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
- I noticed you were doing that and since have made changes to the way I order my references so that they match. Thanks for the heads up on that though. --CJKeys 21:44, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
Done So far and future projects
- I have completed both Technical Readout 3025 and Technical Readout 2750. At this point I will start writing up thge drafts in notepad for the 3050 'Mechs that way I will be able to add any tags that wil be added for the BattleMech Portal project when I put them into the Wiki.--CJKeys 15:40, 2 November 2006 (CST)
- Finished TRO 3050 Lights, Mediums, and heavies. Only Assaults left. --CJKeys 16:22, 3 November 2006 (CST)
- TRO 3050 is done--CJKeys 03:06, 4 November 2006 (CST)
- Wow, that is pretty fast! I'm not going to be very productive today (if at all), but I anticipate doing some tomorrow. I still haven't heard from Nic on my portal question, but we can rpoceed without having columns. I just really need to figure out how to build the portal. --Revanche (admin) 10:58, 4 November 2006 (CST)
- TRO 3050 is done--CJKeys 03:06, 4 November 2006 (CST)
- Finished TRO 3050 Lights, Mediums, and heavies. Only Assaults left. --CJKeys 16:22, 3 November 2006 (CST)
- On 3058, I have done a few of them. I am runign through 3058U and then will come back and sweeup up the phoenixed 'Mechs left fromt he original 3058. I also wanted to let you guys know that I wil be waiting until I have Map Pack Solaris (may be till around or right after christmas) until I touch the Solaris 'Mechs because some of the equipment I have a general idea abotu that is in that book but I dont want to put anything down as rock solid until I am able to see exactly how all the S7 toys work.--CJKeys 09:07, 21 November 2006 (CST)
- Understood. I also wanted to let you know Xoid completed his creation of InfoBoxWeapon2 , for use with two differing tech levels. I haven't built a help page yet, but he's set it up for code-grabbing (and you don't need the help pages, anyway). --Revanche (admin) 11:02, 21 November 2006 (CST)
- Not strictly true. At least reading the two notes can save a lot of work for someone who is manually editing those things. There's also some minor functionality there so users without the TRO can at least start an article (namely the noimg parameter can be set), but I digress. On a related note; something I just thought of… did you reload the cache when you updated MediaWiki:Common.css? Hmm. I just did yet the lil' bars are still there. I'll do a diff. comp. um 'later'. Most likely in around 12 or so hours when I drag my sorry carcass out of bed. Feel free to move that link into the page, much like Uncyc or Wikipedia has, it's a huge time saver in my experience. Adding an easy URL to check the validity of the CSS wouldn't hurt as well. --Xoid 11:14, 21 November 2006 (CST)
- Errr, no I didn't (never crossed my mind). I did it two days ago for the sidebar update when I had problems seeing the change, but I really need to create a link on my userpage with the url needed to purge. BTW, when i just clicked on your link (at work), I got a Open With window dialogue on my screen, asking with which program did I want to open it. The cache purge directions I saw at Mediawikia (or Wikipedia) was a URL. What does your's do? --Revanche (admin) 11:30, 21 November 2006 (CST)
- To be honest? I don't know exactly what it does. I know it purges the cache for the CSS, but I'm unaware of how it does it. I had similar problems earlier while trying the link in IE7. I know it works in Firefox, but the problem in IE7 might just have been the same intermittent problem I've had to deal with all year (being asked if I want to "download" something when I clearly did not try to at all).
- I think there are differences between how the CSS is cached and how a page is, meaning that the regular method of purging page e.g., http://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&action=purge, won't work. I know that it's worked out like that in practice for me. --Xoid 12:11, 21 November 2006 (CST)
- Roger that. I'll try it from home and see what works. --Revanche (admin) 13:31, 21 November 2006 (CST)
- Errr, no I didn't (never crossed my mind). I did it two days ago for the sidebar update when I had problems seeing the change, but I really need to create a link on my userpage with the url needed to purge. BTW, when i just clicked on your link (at work), I got a Open With window dialogue on my screen, asking with which program did I want to open it. The cache purge directions I saw at Mediawikia (or Wikipedia) was a URL. What does your's do? --Revanche (admin) 11:30, 21 November 2006 (CST)
- Not strictly true. At least reading the two notes can save a lot of work for someone who is manually editing those things. There's also some minor functionality there so users without the TRO can at least start an article (namely the noimg parameter can be set), but I digress. On a related note; something I just thought of… did you reload the cache when you updated MediaWiki:Common.css? Hmm. I just did yet the lil' bars are still there. I'll do a diff. comp. um 'later'. Most likely in around 12 or so hours when I drag my sorry carcass out of bed. Feel free to move that link into the page, much like Uncyc or Wikipedia has, it's a huge time saver in my experience. Adding an easy URL to check the validity of the CSS wouldn't hurt as well. --Xoid 11:14, 21 November 2006 (CST)
- Understood. I also wanted to let you know Xoid completed his creation of InfoBoxWeapon2 , for use with two differing tech levels. I haven't built a help page yet, but he's set it up for code-grabbing (and you don't need the help pages, anyway). --Revanche (admin) 11:02, 21 November 2006 (CST)
Chameleon
Linky. This particular one says that it's "custom", but I distinctly remember it from Crescent Hawks Inception. I did a little digging, and it was apparently one of the first designs, first included in the one of the original boxed sets. The original specs. didn't even include internal structure! (This would've been before I was even born, now that I think about it.)
Considering the fact that it can't be considered a 'real' BattleMech without something as integral as internal structure being left out of the specs. (amongst other things), but this was still part of an official FASA product… should a page for it be made? --Xoid 02:22, 20 November 2006 (CST)
- Well I know that several years back TRO Legands was put together and they have info on FASA Apocryphal, Fluff, and Abandoned 'Mechs. We may want to look into seperating the 'Mechs between Canon, Apocryphal, Video Game, and Custom as there are some 'Mechs that FASA/Fanpro would rather have brushed under the rug to never be seen again. The only thing is without very solid sources unfortunately the cedibility of the entry and the wiki overall might suffer and I dont consider TRO Legands to be the best sourcebut it does provide a jumping off point to research entries. Link (TRO Legends).--CJKeys 21:59, 20 November 2006 (CST)
- I know the site you're refering to; I had poured over that place many times in years' past, looking for that amazing bit of trivia. My 2 percents of a c-bill: as a project, focus on the CBT 'verse and then (maybe) the MWDA 'verse first, and then branch out, once Project:BattleMechs has created the canon 'Mechs. However, we shouldn't suggest people /not/ work on their alter-verse 'Mechs and the Project should be prepared to categorize them if to or more entries are created for that alter-verse. --Revanche (admin) 22:42, 20 November 2006 (CST)
- Another thought; when you make a subcategory, make sure you you categorise them with a leading space, like so:
[[Category:Category's Name| Sub Category's Name]]. Reason being? When you have, let's say, 201 pages plus various sub categories in a single category, it'll spread it over more than one page. An unnecessary waste of the viewer's time and both the viewer's and Nic's bandwidth. For an example of this neat trick in practice, try looking at Uncyclopedia's subcategory template, and seeing "what links here". --Xoid 11:25, 21 November 2006 (CST)- I feel like I /should/ understand your concern, but am stymied by not being sure what sub-categories are. I understand the concept, but not how it is defined here. Will read up on it and take your lead. (This is gonna hurt to read a few months from now, when i realize what a novice I was.)--Revanche (admin) 11:37, 21 November 2006 (CST)
- Another thought; when you make a subcategory, make sure you you categorise them with a leading space, like so:
- Category:Planets — Category (doesn't contain any
[[Category:Some Category]]type WikiML in it, at all).- Category:TestA — Sub Category (contains one or more instances of
[[Category:Some Category]]type WikiML in it). - Category:TestB — Sub Category (contains one or more instances of
[[Category:Some Category|What To Categorise Under]]type WikiML in it).
- Category:TestA — Sub Category (contains one or more instances of
- Category:TestC — Category (doesn't contain any
[[Category:Some Category]]type WikiML in it, at all).
- Category:Planets — Category (doesn't contain any
- Check the code of both TestA and TestB. TestA is automatically categorised as "TestA". TestB, having a pipe in the category link categorises it categorises TestB as whatever is after the pipe, but before the ending ]].
- Click on the link to Planets. Notice how the subcategory "TestB" is listed on the first page? Try going through a few pages. You'll find the sub category TestA is buried around the "T" planets. Someone browsing through the categories would be wasting an inordinate amount of time trying to find the sub categories they were after. What I demonstrated was essentially the same trick used on the {{Verify}} template. Notice how you'll find {{Verify}} under "V" in Category:Templates? That's because of how the category code was done.
[[Category:Templates|Verify]]. If we didn't do that, it would've categorised the template by it's first letter, "T".
- --Xoid 01:37, 22 November 2006 (CST)
- [light clicks on] AND that explains why some of those templates (in the templates category) get alphabetized under 'T' and others under their correct first letter. Okay, got it...so, is there any easy way to look for these abnormalities, or is it really 'know how to correct it when you see it' type work? --Revanche (admin) 10:13, 22 November 2006 (CST)
- Well, if you see Template:Cheese under "T", it's a sure sign that the syntax isn't being used. That's the way I spot it. Generally speaking, there's no need for the pipe syntax to be used inside the main namespace (there are possible exceptions, like if you wanted to categorise the TROs by year number instead, or something). --Xoid 11:32, 22 November 2006 (CST)
- I hate how this thing keeps signing me out. *mutter grumble* --Xoid 01:38, 22 November 2006 (CST)
- Does that happen at Undead, also? --Revanche (admin) 09:59, 22 November 2006 (CST)
- Urban Dead, and yes it does. Since we have anonymous edits disabled over there, clicking 'save' doesn't work until you log back in. It can be a pain but at least all my edits are under my user name. --Xoid 11:32, 22 November 2006 (CST)
- Does that happen at Undead, also? --Revanche (admin) 09:59, 22 November 2006 (CST)
- [light clicks on] AND that explains why some of those templates (in the templates category) get alphabetized under 'T' and others under their correct first letter. Okay, got it...so, is there any easy way to look for these abnormalities, or is it really 'know how to correct it when you see it' type work? --Revanche (admin) 10:13, 22 November 2006 (CST)
Xoid needs to know uh… stuff
Starslab/1 or 1/Starslab?
I've seen tons of cases where it's done Starslab/1, but I've also come across some where it's done the other way around. Which is right? --Xoid 08:23, 8 December 2006 (CST)
- I would have to research it but I believe that both variations exist. Unfortunately once something is put into print in a TRO, even if its a typo, it has become canon. --CJKeys 01:01, 19 January 2007 (CST)
Triple Strength Myomers
OK, CJ brought up Triple Strength Myomers. To make the {{InfoBoxBattleMech}} look right when we finally get to a design with one, I need to know: does their effect stack with MASC? --Xoid 12:49, 8 December 2006 (CST)