BattleTechWiki talk:Project Technology

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

Equipment Brands

We need to decide how we are going to handle how equipment models are listed. Certain Pages such as Fusion Engine have more space devoted to the specific models of fusion engine than is devoted to what fusion engine is. We have already begun splitting models off from the Jump jet page and I suggest we do the same with all the other pages. We need to figure out how we want to handle it the two options I see right now are:

1. Make one page for each brand and separate it into sections for each type of equipment (eg. Pitban with a section on jump jets and a section on engines)
2. Make separate pages for each type of equipment in a brand (eg. Pitban (Jump Jets) and Pitban (Fusion Engines))

I vote option 1 --BirdofPrey 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm i think, when we put all infos in one Pitban page the page becomes to long, i provide to seperate the page by Pitban (Jump Jets) and Pitban (Fusion Engines), in the Pitban Fusion Engine page we must seperate XL, XXL models.--Doneve 23:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Technology, Weapons and equipment categories

I am wondering if we want technology to contain every piece of equipment for completeness or if we should just use it for general technology pages (eg. Fusion Engine, Autocannons, ECM Suite) and move specific pieces of equipment (eg. AC/5, AC,10, Guardian ECM, Angel ECM, ect.)into the weapons and equipment categories. --BirdofPrey 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As the lists for any one type of equipment can get rather long I am thinking each specific type of equipment should get its own main page, ie Medium Lasers, AC/10's, Ferro Fibrous Armor, Chassis, ect and that page would then have a link to a separate list of manufacturer types. Then those manufacturer types would have the listing of all the subtypes they mention along with the mechs they are installed in and the places those mechs are made. This way the list of manufacturers wont clutter the main page of the equipment type. I will go make such a list page to show what I mean. -- LRichardson 19:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at List of Standard Jump Jet Types. It is a long format that will include everything, but it is meant to be a sort of database of types of JJ. My concern is that the list will have as many entries as there are mech that have jets. The list is however sortable and it serves a use in that the user can click on each of the columns to find what they want. This list is in addition to the detail breakouts on the individual manufacturer pages. I might consider eliminating the model number and used in columns in these equipment lists. Thoughts? -- LRichardson 21:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's your project, but just to give you feedback: I like your first idea, wherein the main Jump Jets article has a simple list of jump jet manufacturers (right now called 'Brands' on that list) included, which are linked to the article about the respective companies. When you click on the company name, that article lists every product they build, broken down into types. Within that 'types' list would be jump jets (ex: on the Chilton page, it lists gadgets, widgets and jump jets). In the jump jets section, it lists the models of jump jets, where they are made and maybe what 'Mech models use them. (Though, to be honest, if the 'Mech articles were set up right, they would link their jump jets to the Chilton jump jet section, and someone clicking on 'What links here' could quickly see).

Actually, I see it is more set up by brands, which can be manufactured by different companies, but my way seems a bit clearer.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Template

I saw your conversation over on [BattleTechWiki:Administrators#New_project_for_BT_technology]]. From what I see on the template, it is working. Is there something you'd like me to check?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For one, it's shows an error message on the project page about how it belongs in the talk pages. Second since it didn't copy the 'how to use this template' stuff, I am concerned some code didn't come with. Also how do I add an icon to it like the others have?--BirdofPrey 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Template works, but why BirdofPrey removed the tr=new parameter?.--Doneve 00:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the example so people know what to type place the banner on other pages.--BirdofPrey 00:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but the tr=new parameter is a integral pice of some project pages, and talk to new involved users and sarna visitors, to review the tagged pages to help to improve and build it.--Doneve 00:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of those pages aren't new and should probably say tr=peer

That is interesting. The BM one doesn't, but when I copy it over to your project page, it shows the same message. Hmmmm....--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm stymied. The WP:BM one should also show it, but doesn't (unless moved to the wrong page). Somewhere, there's a template the represses that when displayed on the WP main page, but the one we're calling (I suspect) is set only for the BM. I'll think about it; maybe the answer'll come to me.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Who made the template for the Battlemechs project? maybe ask them--BirdofPrey 00:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're getting the error message on the template that's on the project page because that's what the template is supposed to do. It checks to see if it's on an articles talk page. If not, it says to move it, because the project template is supposed to be on the talk page. Since it's on your project page as an illustration, just let it be. --Scaletail 01:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting technical question. Why doesn't the WP:BM one also display that on its page?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not the BM template that has it. Its a template that's being called into play that allows the BM one to prevent the display. However, Scaletail's absolutely right: it doesn't matter, because in the end it is doing its job where you want it: on the talk pages.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. It's the check talk template. --Scaletail 01:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Always the stupid things. Thanks Scaletail--BirdofPrey 01:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)