BattleTechWiki talk:Project Spacecraft

Here to help

Morning, Peregry: let me know what areas you want me to assist you on. Think of me as your guide to the technical aspects of getting things to work here and get the project going. The better you describe the intent or the problem, they better I can assist. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, right now I'm still gathering thoughts on stuff. Random aside: should this talk page be tied to the Project page? --Peregry 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it should. I'll fix it. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

On another matter, you might want to finish firming up the project page, so it appears to be ready with the tools needed. For example, you still have a lot of redlinks on the project page. Sometimes, as the project lead -especially at the beginning- you don't wait for consensus, you just do it. I'd be happy to build the tags for you, but I'd like you to provide a project icon (such as used by Template:WikiProject Biographies.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I got the tags built. I'm working on the project icon and banner still, gotta figure out something good. I'm leaning towards a McKenna silhouette, thought I'm not sure how to add it to the tag. --Peregry 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I was looking at it too, and can't figure out how I did it, just last summer. Once you find and upload your icon, let me know. We'll get Ebakunin to help us. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dropship Categories

Alright, so I was thinking that we need to add category tags to the various dropships. Minimally I think we should by ship type (Spheroid or Aerodyne) and by role (Assault, Aerospace Carrier, Mech Carrier, etc). I just wanted people's thoughts on which categories should be used/added for these. --Peregry 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Tech base? (Clan or Inner Sphere) --Greyhind 07:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ack, yeah, definitely that. That's why I threw this up here, just in case I was forgetting anything obvious. --Peregry 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unifying Templates

I haven't taken a good look at the Warship and Jumpship templates, but I quite familiar with the Dropship one. One thing that I think needs to be done it unify all the entries to use the same style of entry. I am partial to how I do it (see any dropship entry from TRO 3057 to see my style of infobox entry); however, I'm open for others' opinions on the matter. --Peregry 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Warship Images

Originally posted to Cyc's talk page

I noticed that you seemed to be the one who uploaded most of the warship images. I was wondering what the logic was for labeling the TRO:3057 warships as "Clan Refit" and the TRO:2750 "Star League Era." I know that TRO:3057 seems to treat the art used in that book as what the warships always looked like. Do you know of anywhere that cites the TRO:3057 designs as "clan refit?" --Peregry 14:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually TPTB indicate both are valid art and that the 3057 images are late SLDF refits, its like the Unseen and Project Phoenix images here, same designs just reworked art. I'm digging through the CBT forums but everybody agrees its a mess. Cyc 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking through it from that thread you linked me and some threads linked to it. It seems there's two camps on it: those who prefer the 2750 designs and those who prefer the 3057. We should definitely try and not take sides... perhaps we should label the 2750 art as "Early Star League" and the 3057 as "Late Star League" or something instead of Clan refits (as there's art that apparently portrays ComGuard ships using the 3057 art). --Peregry 00:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Originally posted to Peregry's talk page

Still digging, but for starters [1] Cyc 00:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely an interesting read. I'm surprised people are so passionate about it. --Peregry 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Discussion/Information

I'd like to come to a consensus on how we label these. Unless there comes a statement from an official source saying which ones are suppose to be the canon images, and even then, I'd like to see the "non-canon" artwork still available--Peregry 03:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC) simply for posterity.

Individual WarShips

I recently embarked on a project to create article for every individual WarShip. I envision this being a long process and began the first part of the first phase by creating articles for the modern Kurita WarShips. Many of these vessels have a brief synopsis in the article for the WarShip class they belong to, but, given the role WarShips play in the Jihad, I don't think this is going to be sufficient to tell their stories. I've had indications from other editors who are unsure that this is the right way to go, so I'm kicking off the discussion. Your thoughts? --Scaletail 14:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In my opinion, there are too many ships we're never going to have much information on. This means we'll have a couple of hundred stub articles with nothing but the class of the ship, and maybe what faction used it. IMHO, that doesn't benefit the site. The little blurbs under the Warship class articles are more than sufficient for 98% of the Warships. ClanWolverine101 15:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ,ClanWolverine101, There simply not enough information on majority of the Warships for each any everyone them to have its own article. This is similar situation to the Notable Pilots. If there not alot info on them person, it shouldn't be posted seperately. This similar. What little information there has been posted on Warships, i've been listed is brief mentions in the Named Ships of the Class section of the Warship articles. Warships, like the example of the Invisible Truth, which have been featured in Novels, has more information detailing the ship thats not found in normal warship profiles in TROs. If a ship has done something extensively fluff on the ship from novels. then it should get a Individual article. Thats My Two Credits. -- Wrangler 16:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

True! I put up the Invisible Truth article, and I consider it a rare exception. Maybe there are others, but not many. ClanWolverine101 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I should be able to collect info on the individual WarShips. The text will just be added to the entry for each WarShip within the existing articles. Reversing what I did in 5...4.... --Scaletail 00:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not every ship needs a full history, but I think we should list as many of them as we can by type. Warships are not like regular units in that way and we can still have important notes if needed. There is plenty of information available Post-Jihad / War of Reaving. I'm just waiting for the moritorium to get started.--Fatebringer 13:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I added information as I stumbled across it in Jihad books, so the coverage may be a bit inconsistent. --Scaletail 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

CSV v. CSS

I have noticed that individual ComStar WarShips are inconsistently labeled. We use both CSS and CSV (presumably ComStar Ship and Vessel, respectively). The problem is that official sources themselves use both. For the sake of consistency, I think we should pick one and stick with it. Any thoughts on which one it should be? --Scaletail 01:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add further pain, the ComStar WarShips in Twilight of the Clans used ISS. Normally I'd say we go with newest sources which would be Jihad Hot Spots: Terra, but then we still have the confusion between Clan Steel Viper's ships which also use CSV. Cyc

Some random thoughts, I suspect that designation "ISS" used in the Twilight series was a temporary rechristening for those ships to act as part of the new Star League. Why? The most likely meaning of "ISS" is "Inner Sphere Ship." I'd be inclined to say to use "CSS" as it seems the most appropriate and does not have overlap with the Viper's designation. --Peregry 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think "CSS" would be less confusing for all. --Scaletail 19:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Spacecraft Thrust Values...

One of the things that differs between the spacecraft and vehicle infoboxes is how the movement speed is given. In most mech and vehicle articles, it's given in KPH, an actual measure of speed, rather than in Battletech movement. On spacecraft articles we give the value in game values. While the TROs for most spacecraft do not give these values, the conversion is well known as 1 point is equal to .5 g last I heard. So this brings up my first question: should we convert spacecraft velocities from game movement values to actual values?

Should we decide yes on this it is easy enough to remedy, merely time consuming, but it leads to another question, what value to use? Keep in mind, the values are not a top speed, but rather of acceleration. The simplest would be to put it in the value of a g. For the record, g is the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth: 9.8 meters per second per second. Of course, since the value of g is known, we could instead convert all the way the meters per second per second in the infobox, giving a number more similar to the values used on other entries (though in meters per second per second rather than KPH).

To use an example, a ship with a 3/5 Safe Trust/Max Trust would change to either 1.5 g /2.5 g or 14.7 m/s/s / 24.5 m/s/s.

My opinion is that converting away from the game values is probably a good idea, as it holds in line with the rest of the wiki. I think the best value to use for this is the g, due to the conversion being simplest (1 = .5 g), and the most useful from a fluff perspective as Battletech ships maintain gravity either via rotational gravity decks or by constant acceleration at, well, 1 g.

--Peregry 04:04, 7 March 2012 (PST)

Peregry, I absolutely agree with you that the articles should represent the in-universe attributes for spacecraft rather than game values. Would you please cite the source for the 1 pt = 0.5 g? I'd rather it come from a rulesbook than a PTB if we can, even if it's an outdated book.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:02, 7 March 2012 (PST)

Strategic Operations pg 36 discusses safe thrust values for crews and gives G values of safe thrust after the actual Trust point values. The G value is .5 G per thrust point. Again, on pg 63 this value is used for converting a station keeping drive from G to TP, then again on pg 76 it's used in an example. I can't find anywhere it's explicitly stated, at least in Strategic Operations, but it's definitely the accepted value. --Peregry 19:43, 29 March 2012 (PDT)

Further citation: Total Warfare pg 80 remarks that in order to hover over a planet's surface "The unit

must spend 2 Thrust Points each turn to off set gravity." If 2 Thrust points = 1 G, then 1 Thrust point = .5 G. ;) --Peregry 19:54, 29 March 2012 (PDT)

And everything that falls under this project's purview has been converted from Thrust points to g that I could find. Work was slow, what can I say? ;) --Peregry 02:06, 30 March 2012 (PDT)