Talk:Revenant (Individual Orion BattleMech)

Image gallery

(Copied over from User talk:Dmon#Kerensky's Orion)

I'm curious: Why did you remove the cover images from the gallery showing Kerensky's Orion? To wit, it sure seems to be the same 'Mech, marked with "01" and "AK" (the latter not visible on the LoT2 cover). Since all these images already exist on Sarna and are used in other contexts, I don't see why they shouldn't be put into this article. Frabby (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

I agree that it does appear to be the same 'Mech, the main reason I removed them is part of an ongoing debate between myself and Fredericmora about product covers being used in as many articles as humanly possible. Personally I am not a fan of posting the cover of a product unless the product is directly discussed in the article rather than just referenced. I am having limited success in convincing Fred to only use clean art instead of entire covers. He uploaded a clean version of the Fall from Glory art, I just need to go back in and wikifi it before re-adding it to the article. --Dmon (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

The funny part is this: I think the covers are way more informative and relevant, because they showcase that this 'Mech features on the covers of these products. The "clean" image, on the other hand, has no additional information value - and it is also, imho, in violation of the "no image repository" part of our Policy:Images. I don't feel particularly strong about the issue, but I have to say I gravitate to Fred's position on this one. :) Frabby (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

Interestingly the whole debate between me and Fred started about a year or so ago when I noticed that he was adding every product cover a 'Mech had ever been featured on into the 'Mech articles and I used the same the "no image repository" part of our Policy:Images as part of my reasoning against it! :-p

I can see the point of showcasing the fact that a certain 'Mech has been featured on a number of product cover, the Mad Cat, Atlas and Warhammer are going to end up with huge gallery sections. I favor a few good images that showcase the design, and in the case of the classic 'Mechs the various interpritations of them over the years.--Dmon (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

Sooo... where do we go from here? As an additional argument, we're talking about an individual 'Mech here, not a generic model. I think that could be an argument to keep the covers in the image gallery for Kerensky's Orion. As for generic 'Mech classes, I agree that we don't really need multiple images of Mad Cats, Atlases, Warhammers etc. at this time - though I actually have long-term plans for a gallery in that general direction: Original 1st/2nd Ed. cardboard image, TRO image, Reinforcements cardboard image, miniatures, and so on, to show the design's evolution. Frabby (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

Add a section that lists (not shows) products where said generic Mech was featured on the cover? Or just in the "notes".--Cache (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

I mulled over the ideas over night and my position has not really changed. I agree that individual 'Mechs should have a slightly different set of rules to the generic 'Mech articles but for me the only real weight the pro-covers debate has is that it adds emphasis on the importance of said individual 'Mech, but the fact that the 'Mech has its own article already makes that point.

Even listing the products a generic 'Mech has appeared on means that somebody going to have to and count said product appearances, and then ideally somebody else is going to have to go and double check the count and keep it updates as new products are released. It seems like a lot of work for what to me seems an incredibly esoteric factoid.--Dmon (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2021 (EDT)

I'm not convinced. :) Having an article doesn't in and of itself suggest the importance of an individual 'Mech. We're basically creating an article for every named individual 'Mech by now (and rightly so, since we've been doing this for spacecraft for years). So if and when that individual 'Mech has one or even several pictures, I think it's only natural to put them into the article. Mind you, I'm not suggesting uploading superfluous images for this purpose, but if the images are on Sarna already there is zero reason not to use them in the article. I believe there are very few cases with more than one image, and most will have none at all.

In the specific case of Theodore Kurita's Orion there's the added oddity that the Legends paint scheme (which we factcheckers didn't get as part of the factchecking manuscript) doesn't match the paint scheme described in the novel.

To wrap it up, I think we should restore the article on Kerensky's/Kurita's Orion to re-include the covers garllery, because it's an outlier case anyways. Frabby (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2021 (EDT)