Category talk:Characters with Pilot Cards

Category Title

Shouldn't this category be called "Pilot Card Characters"? The term "Pilot Cards" would seem to refer to the actual product, but the articles here seem to concern the "in-universe" characters on those cards. --Dude RB (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2022 (EDT)

I recently moved the category from being part of the characters meta-category into the the game aids, as I felt it was out of place in the characters, but I have accidentally created a confusing situation. At the same time, pilot cards are a product so should have no place in a "In Universe" category.--Dmon (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for your note, Dmon. I'm curious. Would the information on pilot cards be considered canon? If so, the info would still be in-universe and appropriate to include with lore. If not, then that would necessitate a different approach (which might mean renaming the individual pages themselves to make it clear they either mean the specific card or apocryphal info.) Also, if the cards are almost fully replicated, wouldn't this raise copyright issues? --Dude RB (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2022 (EDT)

The information on the cards is canon just like the notable pilot entries in the Recog Guides. Where we've seen issues in the past is backers for those providing additional information that was provided to CGL beyond what is listed on the card/PDF, unless its officially mentioned in-print its not cannon. As for copyright, usual rules apply with rephrasing/paraphrasing at a minimum to avoid copy/paste.Cyc (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2022 (EDT)

So, since they are canon, their info can be included within the lore. So I don't any issue with them being identified with a subcategory of characters. Also there are some pilot card characters, like Natasha Kerensky and others in BattleTech: Legendary MechWarriors Pack that have bio pages that are quite extensive and go well beyond the card alone. The artices for these latter characters could also have a "Pilot Card Characters" category tag attached. For the less legendary pilots, nearly eveything, with exception of the "Game Rules" section would seem lore-appropriate. (For example, see Piers Ballantine.) It would seem that either (a) deleting the Game Rules section or (b) relabeling that section as a special note (perhaps calling it a "Pilot Card Note") would make these articles serviceable as character pages. Given the issues with Game Rules sections, perhaps option (a) would be best. Thoughts? --Dude RB (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2022 (EDT)

We also have option (c), which is to transfer the Game Rules sections (and any other info specific to the card that is not "in-universe") from these pages to a page (or set of pages) dedicated to the pilot cards. I think that an individual bio for each character makes sense. (Some of these character pages may expand if the character appears in other canonical materials.) But an individual page for each pilot card seems excessive. MechWarrior:Dark Age Sets (Collections) and Miniatures - Catalyst Game Labs give examples of what could be done. In partciular pilot cards could be grouped based on product series. Of course, a major operational question would be what information do we record in such summaries. But I think we would then be clearly separating the character info from the product info and allow the design answers for each to be explored independently. --Dude RB (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2022 (EDT)

The more I think about it the less I think this category should exist. In theory every single pilot card is part of a larger product (for example BattleTech: Inner Sphere Direct Fire Lance). As such, the characters get listed in the product article so do we need to count off the cards individually? As for the game rules.. I vote option d... for Delete.--Dmon (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2022 (EDT)

Assessing the purpose/aim of this category is a relevant question.

If the aim is to track the actual pilot cards themselves, then I think that specially constructed directory/“list” page(s) (in combination with the product pages containing the cards themselves) would work better for that purpose than attempting to have individual pilot card pages.

If the aim is to have a way to identify characters that have a pilot card, then I think that renaming the category to “Pilot Card Characters” would work for that purpose. There may be some value to this. However, if someone wanted to identify which product(s) contained a pilot’s specific card, then either a pilot card directory (if such was created) or the references in the character’s page would serve to point to the actual product. (So this might argue for a character sub-category but the argument is not strong.)

In either case, I am fine with deleting the game rules sections in these character pages if second opinions agree. --Dude RB (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2022 (EDT)

Observations upon further reflection: The idea of a dedicated directory page for pilot cards also faces major issues. In the Alpha Strike Lance Packs only one side of one card in each pack would be considered a pilot info/profile card. And more recent pilot cards are double-sided. Attempting to directory the pilot cards would likely expand to attempting to directory all the Alpha Strike Cards. (Attempting to directory all Alpha Strike Cards would be quite untenable, especially as cards have been released both in physical form and digital form.) The summarization of the cards themselves does seem best left to the pages of the products within which they are contained. A simple overview page about Alpha Strike cards and the types and styles that exist might be sensible, but a directory page detailing each card (or card face) seems unviable. --Dude RB (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2022 (EDT)

I oppose deletion of the Game Rules section. First off, I spent a good deal of time adding them in. There is no copyright issue as you still need the relevant books to know how to use a SPA, and it shows character progression through their statistics eg. Tracy Maxwell Kent.MahiMahi (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2022 (EDT)

Some key points from Discord conversation with MahiMahi:

(MahiMahi)"I don't see a need to change how they are. Many of them are for existing characters in universe and are categorized as such. Plenty of other characters have rules on their character pages, eg Margaret Aten. They're inexorably tied to the character and a consolidation page would just be chunky."

(MahiMahi)"The Pilot Card category is basically just a way to keep the hundreds of Pilot cards linked together. It admittedly might not ultimately be needed but I don't share the aversion to categories some here do. Presently the ForcePacks pages link to them as well BattleTech: Inner Sphere Command Lance"

(Dude RB)"Thanks for the further notes. The Margaret Aten example does give precedent for character pages containing some degree of game info rather than in-universe info. Interesting."

(Dude RB)"Let me change gears somewhat. I think that the category title should be changed from "Pilot Cards" to "Pilot Card Characters" and made a subcategory of the category "Characters". After all these pages are firstmost character pages even they include a bit of game info. The "Pilot Card Character" category tag would still make it apparent what character have corresponding pilot cards. I think that this may help clear up some of the issues. Do you see any issues with this category name change?"

(MahiMahi)"That should work."

(Dude RB)"That's helpful to know. Thanks for your thoughts."

--Dude RB (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2022 (EDT)

So I am in favor of changing the category name from "Pilot Cards" to "Pilot Card Characters" as these are character pages, albeit with some game info (which does not necessarily disqualify a page from being a character page). Understandably, discussion about the handling of game rule info in certain wiki pages may continue to develop, but that seems to be a different discussion (a topic for a different thread) and technically separate from my initial inquiry. --Dude RB (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2022 (EDT)

As a tracking aide, possibly make the name change to "Character with Pilot Cards" so the intent of the category is that much clearer.--Dmon (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2022 (EDT)

OK, I will plan to use "Characters with Pilot Cards" are the new category title. --Dude RB (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2022 (EDT)