BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs

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

Articles: base model only or all variants?

• First, should we aim (not start out) having an article for each 'Mech type and variant? What I mean is, while each article also includes a very brief write-up of each variant, the link within that write-up takes you to that variant's article. Pro: specific infobox/article (and pic, for the Phoenix units) for each 'Mech. I'm also thinking there's no reason not to post the HeavyMetal record sheets, if we do this. Con: a lot more articles to write. --Revanche 14:19, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
  • On this subject I would have to say that there are some major pros and cons. I know that writing up the initial 'Mech articles themselves vary in thier degree of difficulty due to the fact that the 'Mechs sometimes have one or two varaints and other times they have ten or twelve varaints. I have mentioned before that I began witht he writing style used for military vehicles on wiki. In that format unles there is a major difference, like say between the Blackjack BattleMech and Blackjack OmniMech, the variation of the basic design gets a small blurb describing the changes and the article moves on. Either way I can live with but I will say that simply doing the base models along with varaint info alone can be very time intensive, especialy on the older 'Mechs with tons of variants. Anyway. I just thought I woudl share my thoughts with you on this subject. --CJKeys 09:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
    • Well, since there's the only the two of us on this Project, and after reading what you had to say about the numbers of variants involved, I feel inspired to table this. When most/all of BattleTechs base-model 'Mechs have been written, then the Project, with all of its members, can re-consider it. Agree? --Revanche 10:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
      • In the later stages, once we have all the base models done I can see us doing a page for every varaint. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
        • I was planning on using the mech data HTMLs I previously generated on Sarna.net to create articles for each variant. I like the pages such as Assassin how they are now -- in addition to those, I would be auto-generating articles such as ASN-23 Assassin. Nicjansma 00:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
• Consensus has us tabling this until the Project has hit the Base Model Articles milestone. Thanks. --Revanche 00:24, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Separate Articles Based on Universe?

• Second issue: should there be some category difference between the gaming universes? That is, should there be CBT 'Mechs, MWDA 'Mechs, Game 'Mech categories? Some units cross between 'verses. --Revanche 14:19, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
  • There shouldnt be a difference. Allready sevral of the 'Mechs I have written up have varaints listed from Record Sheets: Mechwarrior Dark Age. Unfortunately with many of the newer 'Mechs in MWDA, because of the roster card system, we do not in many cases have information as to what varaint is the baseline chassis which can make knowing what is and isn't a varaint somewhat hard. Eventually CBT and MWDA will have to catch up and when they do we will have tons of information, Until that point though information is limited. I could see some kind of stub like article that covers the basics about the design but to do an infobox on the MWDA units, unless they were in RS:MWDA1, in which case there is usually enough info to tell which is the base model based on designation numbers as well as the fact that there is information from the cards providing manufacturer and fluff info. --CJKeys 09:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
    • Okay, I understand and it makes sense. However, then, maybe we should include categories at the bottom of articles where there are MWDA/CCG/Video Game variants listed? --Revanche 10:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Well as far as MWDA varaits, Most of them can be translated strignt from the MWDA source with only placement guessing if it is an existing mech with a few exceptions. As far as video game variants....Unfortunately I really never looked too har at the varaints in the games except to find flaws to fix while playing and some of them use such an abstract system, such as Mechcommander 2, to be nearly impossible to translate into the format of already existing TRO style info without being extremely vague. As far as CCG variants I wasnt aware that there were any variants unique to the CCG though there may have been and I am just unaware of thier existance. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
        • But isn't it true that only some of the CBT base models are represented in the other 'verses? If so, we could add categories, like Category:MWDA 'Mechs and Category:CCG 'Mechs to each of the base models where a variant is represented. --Revanche 00:26, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Cost Included?

• I'd like to add the Cost summary for the base model to the InfoBox (thining in the Production Information part). How do you feel about that? And, if for it, should we also add it for the variants, after the BV? --Revanche 15:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Cost woudl be cool both in the base model box and the varaits. --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
• Consensus has Cost as a new table to be added to the BattleMech InfoBox. --Revanche 00:27, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

TRO in HTML form

• We nearly easily have the capbility of adding in the TRO information, as printed out by HMP. Since BTW is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all things BattleTech, I think we should include it. However, I say that with caveats: a) I don't think we should do it now, but after a majority of articles have been completed, b) 'they should only have been added for 'Mechs that have been public a year (significant grace period) abd c), the conversion from HTML to Wiki is not perfect. Each table within the TRO would require some formatting. I feel this is perfectly acceptable,, since Rick jumped thru so many hoops to get HMPro, with its HTML export feature, approved. (I'd draw the line at the fluff, as we're re-writing it already and I like how its being done.) So, is this (the HMP TROs) something we should add to the Scope of the Project? --Revanche 15:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
  • In the later stanges, maybe when we start to go to making a page for each variant?? --CJKeys 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
    • Ok, I see what you're saying. When we move past the initial milestone, we'll add meat to each new article by breaking out the variants and adding the TROs. Good idea. One-stop combined milestone. --Revanche 00:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Omnis in the title

• Good catch with the omnis (Firestarter, Blackjack), CJKeys. We don't need those ambiguations. Question for you: should we put the term Omni in paranthesis in the title, like Guardian (Conventional Fighter) is handled? --Revanche 09:03, 19 October 2006 (CDT)