Category talk:Brawler BattleMechs

Delete Role Categories

The "Role" articles and (new) parent category are good to have, in my opinion (though they need to be modified to cover all combat units and not just BattleMechs). However, the sub-categories like this with a listing of 'Mechs in that specific role are untenable. 1) The roles depend on the individual variant so one chassis theoretically can be listed in all categories. This means each variants would need to be tagged in order to be accurate. 2) The categories have been present for over a decade and there are less than 10 members in each category. How many thousands of designs are there left to add? I feel this listing is best left to a database--the Master Unit List. --Cache (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

I am inclined to agree with the motion to delete. I have not used the MUL in ages so I am not sure if it has units sortable by role but no BT product I am aware of has such a list. As such I am not sure we would ever be able to ever turn these categories into anything much more than they currently are.--Dmon (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Respectfully, can this be reconsidered? It seems MUL supports looking up units by role. For brawlers it lists:

• BattleMech 482
• Combat Vehicle 85
• IndustrialMech 11
• Protomech 18
• Support Vehicle 64

Also both RS Succession Wars and RS Clans roles are listed in the "'Mech Data" box. In fact I was planning to update it with MUL and RS material.--Mindw (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2020 (EDT)

I maintain that roles are best left to the MUL. They are too much for us to reliably maintain on the wiki. You added one role to the Centurion article. Roles are assigned to specific variants, not to the overall chassis, and not all Centurion variants are Brawlers. OmniMechs can have an even greater range of roles. You can add multiple categories to the article, but in order to be accurate you need to specify which variants are assigned what roles. Much like my opinion of adding factions to these articles, leave it to the MUL.--Cache (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

This perhaps suggest that the categories are the wrong tool for the job? we can add for each variant same way as the the BV. Looking at quirks, the master table in the BMM states that it covers all variants of a 'Mech unless otherwise stated - perhaps the same principle may be used for the r`

Role is a very arbitrary description, and thus iffy for wiki purposes. If you're defining it by "the MUL says so" then it boils down to copying the MUL. Sarna shouldn't try to out-MUL the MUL. My 2c on the matter. I don't feel strong about it either way. Frabby (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

This is somewhat confusing, how is that different from taking the introduction date and cost from the MUL? also, the roles are present in both Succession Wars and Clan invasion TROs? --Mindw (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

(Copied discussion from my talk page. --Cache (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2020 (EDT))
<<--

I've been involved in BT for over 30 years and I have never heard of roles until 2 months ago. BV 2.0 was a new thing once too. What is *new* is the roles are in both MUL *and* ~TROs~ RSs. IMHO, That makes them no less arbitrary than introduction dates and has a place in the wiki along side other MUL content. Yes, roles do seem arbitrary to me as well in some cases - although in many others its pretty clear cut.

I have the greatest respect for all the editors of the this wiki over its many years of existence. I'm willing to take it on myself to update all roles for the MUL and TROs where relevant including resolving the issue with variants as pointed above.

That being said - there are plenty of other improvements and cleanups to be done :) --Mindw (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

"Plenty of other"... That's part of the point I'm trying to get across, however poorly: If you added all roles by yourself (labeling each variant and not using categories would be best, IMO) there would still need to be upkeep done in the future, and there seems to be a lack of editors interested in the upkeep of roles. I've only been editing for a handful of years but I see a lot of half-finished passion projects that have been abandoned, and I'd prefer to minimize adding to them. Since the MUL is completely free and is a searchable database, I see trying to duplicate it's information as a waste of time... time better spent adding non-database information (i.e. from sourcebooks) into the wiki.

You've done a lot of good work in the short time you've been editing, Mindw, and it is appreciated. I don't really have anything more to add to the discussion. If you really want to add roles, I won't complain. Let us know either way.--Cache (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

(Last bit for consolidation of information.) Here's the duplication we have for the roles subject. I'm in favor of keeping the article (needs update) and deleting the categories (parent and children):

The article: BattleMech Combat Categories

The category tree: Category:BattleMech_roles

--Cache (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing things up!. I have already stopped adding roles categories to units. For now I'll just concentrate on bringing up the units to latest template level, remove manually listed categories, remove deprecated fields, add missing fields, add/correct quirks and other minor stuff.

I would like to take a shot at implementing "feet" - would Template_talk:InfoBoxBattleMech be a good place to discuss this? cheers! --Mindw (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

Weighing in: I'm against deletion. I often, in my own campaigning, seek out roles for 'Mechs to fit into their units and am thrilled that the terms have been extended to other ground units and ASFs. I acknowledge the (strong) argument that the existence of the MUL creates an administration challenge for Sarna to meet, however I don't believe any present official source will always remain available or maintained, and I'd like to "save" what we can while we can, even if it is far from complete. I, myself, do not wish to update all the 'Mechs (and other vehicles) with roles, but I certainly attest to the value in having a category for the roles themselves, in the event such a project does start. Honestly, if Nic (or someone else) could scrape the MUL for roles and apply them to the infoboxes and article categorization, would we not want that? What I am for is merging this BattleMech-focused series of categories into a more general Unit Role series (to include ASFs).--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:01, 15 May 2021 (EDT)

The major question I have with automating population of the role categories is this: Each individual variant can have a different role, so can anyone automatically add a role to each variant's description? Putting it in the infobox only covers the variant in the infobox. A Raven, for example, can have one of three roles depending on the variant: Scout, Skirmisher, or Striker. Even if that is possible, the categories won't display which variant belongs in that category. So what would be the point?--Cache (talk)

That's a rather valid point. I don't disagree with you. It makes the old Sarna mantra come back to me: "Don't try to out-MUL the MUL."--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:59, 27 October 2021 (EDT)