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.

Archive

Unseen

How do we feel about putting up Unseen 'Mech images? I personally think it's a very bad idea considering the Harmony Gold lawsuit, but these are also rare images that are impossible to find unless you have the original TROs. Comments? --Scaletail 15:26, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

A little late. I have already scanned and put in most of the unseen images. Anyway, in their original form, that is what the 'Mechs did look like, and it is still canonically (sp?) correct to use those images. CJKeys 00:47, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

The Project Phoenix images can be uploaded over them. That's not a major issue and should only take a couple of hours at most. Yes, I agree with you that this is what those 'Mechs looked like in 3025, but they look different in 3067. Personally, I like having the Unseen images up there because it gives newcomers to the game the ability to see them and know what those of us who have been around longer are talking about. My only concern is about the legality of post those same images. --Scaletail 12:26, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

As far as I know our use of them is fair use as we are using them as examples of the 'Mechs as they were originally done and not for profit. Additionaly, there is no risk to Fanpro or InResMedia as we are not afiliated with Fanpro, InResMedia, or with WizKids. If we need to update notes on each of the images, it is not that hard and we can do that but we do not need to delete them from the pages of this project as their use here does meet the standards for fair use. CJKeys 13:56, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Works for me! --Scaletail 15:51, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Candidates

Sorry to put myself into this talk, but I like to know how can I candidate myself to the Project BattleMech? I am the guy who made the initial Vulture page, and I think I can do something useful in this project.

Nothing special is required, just add your name to the group as indicated at the top of the page. On a related note, you can sign your talk posts by typing four tildes at the end of it. --Scaletail 14:54, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, just come on board and welcome aboard.CJKeys 23:47, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Inner Sphere 'Mechs are Done

After working on this for around seven months I am proud to announce that all of the mainstream Inner Sphere 'Mechs that have a TRO entry are finished. I know as the game goes on this will be a continuing process but now we are oficially ahead of the curve on the Inner Sphere 'Mechs and I'm sure the Clan 'Mechs wont take too long. The Solaris VII 'Mechs are a creature unto themselves, and once I actually buy Map Pack Solaris VII, I will start working on those as I have already scanned images for them. I would like to congratulate the whole team. Without everyone here, we wouldn't have ever gotten this far. So don't be suprised if you also get this on each of your discussion pages. CJKeys 00:52, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Famous Pilots

How about a section--along with "description," etc.--entitled "notable pilots?" There, we could include info on famous (or infamous) MechWarriors. Scaletail 15:03, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I can agree with that. I don't want us to end up just copying the notable pilots out of the tros though. I would think pilots like Phelan Kell, Jamie Wolf, Victor Stiener Davion, etc. Those who are main storyline characters who are big wigs and would be known throughout the Inner Sphere, not just someone that is featured in a book and pilots a Wraith if you know what I mean. CJKeys 22:45, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I definitely would not want to just copy the featured pilots out of the Upgrade TROs. Most of them are not notable at all. I think any character that is notable enough to warrant a article devoted to them would also be worthy of being noted as a famous pilot (and I mean a real article like Peter S-D, not a one line blurb like Nonda Toolipi). I think that the 'Mechs that were used by Solaris champions can also be noted. Scaletail 08:35, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

So, akin to the Peder Smythe discussion: What counts as a sufficiently notable character? While I do agree that pointless nobodies from the TROs should not be included, I strongly feel that characters who do have an entry in this wiki should be crosslinked, and that anyone who features prominently in a novel, game, or sourcebook deserves mention. Mind, the mention of a given pilot in the 'Mech entry should be kept as short as possible, and link to the character's entry. But I think it does in fact belong there. Frabby 01:44, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

Similar to my opinion on that previous discussion, I do not think that BTW is a place for lists. Given that outcome of that discussion, I believe that our earlier notability requirement for a notable pilot needs to be tightened up, since any character can now have an article written about them. I'll agree with CJ's statement above that main characters should be included, although I would be slightly more inclusive in saying that any character who is the main character of a novel is notable enough to have a section written about them. --Scaletail 18:51, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

I do like the idea of notable pilots. I also believe they should be either extremely well known (ie Bounty Hunter, Kai Allard-Liao) or they should be the movers and shakers of the universe who like to run around in 'Mechs (Victor S-D, Theodore Kurita). As far as personell who are key to a novel....they may be notable in the novel, but they might not be more than an average pilot in not so average circumstances in respect to being a 'MechWarrior. I also would like to see the pilots get only a couple of sentences instead of a paragraph, as the reason they are notable should be found in the bulk of their own article, not within the BattleMechs article.CJ 23:34, 3 April 2008 (CDT)

I've recently begun taking this up myself. I've been careful not to go too far in designating 'notable pilots'. They must be 'famous' and they must be identified with the mech. Sun-Tzu Liao is a good rule of thumb. He's a major character in about 20 novels; we see him use a mech maybe twice. ClanWolverine101

Other Technical Information

Hey guys. I've noticed the great work that's gone on with the 'Mech stuff, but I noticed that the more 'technical' details (like number of heat sinks, in particular) seems to be missing on the 'Mechs. Was it a conscious decision to not include that information? I noticed the same thing with the entries in the MechWikia pages as well. The reason I mention it is that while we say things like "On the Panther 10K2 variant, the heat sinks were swapped out with double-strength heat sinks...", but that doesn't tell someone how many beyond the basic ten were double-strength. This is just one example of information that might be nice to add. Just my $0.02. :) Bdevoe 08:07, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I signed on to the Project kinda late, but I believe it was never the intention to provide enough information to be able to fill in a record sheet (for that, you can go to chaosmarch.com). Rather, the project focused more on the description, aiming for a technical readout-like write-up. CJ can correct me on whatever is wrong, but that is my assumption. Scaletail 10:18, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Scaletail is more less spot on. The Sarna wiki entires, and the ones I worked on previously in Mechwikia, are intended as a general TRO like description of the 'Mechs that can give the reader a good idea abotu the 'Mech. As far as sites that provide carbon copies of the record sheet info, there are a few that already do that. CJKeys 00:59, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

That sounds fine and I didn't expect that an attempt would be made to provide the entire record sheet. You're right in that there are plenty of sites/applications that do that already. Maybe there's just two things I'm thinking about - weapon locations and the number of heat sinks. Some weapons replace existing limbs (like the MLaser on the Valkyrie) and some systems are in addition to limbs/hands (like the PPC on the Panther, although that's not "droppable"). It could simply be mentioned in the Armaments section. I do think the addition of heat sinks to the InfoBox would be nice, though. You're not providing location of the heat sinks, but it would give someone with some similarity with the game the ability to evaluate some of the variant pros/cons. Again, just my $0.02. :) Bdevoe 11:24, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I understand what you're saying, and I don't see how more information can really be a bad thing. I mean, if we're going to put up images of the Unseen, we can post technical data. I think descriptions like "giving the 'Mech heat problems" should give you a general idea of the heat sink status of any given design. In my opinion, if we are aiming for a description of the 'Mech, that should be sufficient as the exact number of heat sinks is not vitally important to a 'Mech compared to its weapons. For that matter, I'm not sure the exact tonnage devoted to armor is vital, but the information is provided on most designs. I guess I'm sort of ambivalent about it. If you want to do the work, I won't stand in your way, but it's quite low on my list of things to do. Scaletail 16:40, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

*laugh* Fair enough. What I propose is that we add heat sinks to the info box. We're missing a bunch of other things as well - targeting system, communication systems, etc., but I think heat sinks as a field by itself would be fine. If CJKeys agrees to that, I'll make the adjustments to the InfoBox and start adding that data. I only have the 3025 and 3050 TROs, so anything beyond the 'Mechs in those would have to be added by someone else. For 'Mechs in those TROs, though, I would commit to adding that information myself. Thoughts? Bdevoe 19:55, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Change format?

Let me first congratulate you folks on what you have achieved here! This said, I suggest the TRO format be abandoned, or at least significantly improved, because you (we) can do better than that. To correctly catalogue all BattleMechs, I suggest a template along these lines (the same could in fact be used for any vehicle, fighter or spaceship):

• Generic Chassis information

(Very general description of the type: Chassis code (e.g. WSP for all Wasp variants), date of creation, known factories/producers, "core" variant, special stuff like OmniMech, command module, difficult to maintain, etc.), history, known users and proliferation on a scale from 0 (extinct/very rare) to 5 (common), special boardgame rules pertaining to the model (like flipping arms on Rifleman or piloting penalty on the Javelin), Unseen

• Variants
  • sort variants by origin: official alternate model by original manufacturer, house modification, inofficial typical field modification
    • For each single variant: Exact designation, rundown of tech base, configuration, known production centers, reasons for the variant/modification, who invented the variant; descriptive armament text
    • Link to IIC version, if applicable (which should be treated as a different 'Mech, not a variant)

Also, the Chassis code (i.e. WSP for Wasp) should redirect to the BattleMech entry. Frabby 02:48, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I fail to see how this is different that what has been done. Most BattleMech entries contain a date of production, a description of the 'Mech, and, where possible, its design history. We have made the decision not to simply copy the "famous pilots" from the TRO upgrade series, and I do plan to update some of the 'Mechs with famous pilots (like Victor Steiner-Davion in Victor and Daishi). I don't see how we could possibly do a number-based "proliferation" scale, as that info is nowhere I know of. Despite descriptions in the TRO that mention things like "this 'Mech's reactor shielding occasionally fails with no warning," there is no difference in game rules. If you want to start a House Rules article for the Javelin and indicate that you give it a +1 to piloting, that's fine with me. I also would have no objections to creating flippable arms and working that into the descriptions of 'Mechs for which that applies. The variants are currently sorted in alphanumerical order, which I believe works and see no reason to change. As for the other info on variants, as much of that as is possible is there. There is info on their armament, but there is usually no information on where these things are produced (if different). Some of that is changing, like in TRO:PP, but there's certainly no way that it can be done for every variant because the info simply does not exist. As for the IIC variants, they are all linked, but the pages for most of them have not been created yet. Scaletail 08:24, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Scaletail on this. We are not attempting to create a "Janes BattleMech Guide" but are attempting to create entries on BattleMechs that tell you enough about them so that you know about the base version of the design and you also get information on each of the variants. The IIC 'Mechs are seperate. A link and brief description is provided to them under the variants section because in the end, even though the 'Mechs are different enough to be a new design, they are also a variant upon the original design so they are both a variant and a new design. They haven't been completed yet and once they are completed they will have their own articles. The listing of variants should be done alphanumerically as this is the simplest and most encyclopedic way of doing this for reference. Additionally, if you look at the faction list maintained by Peter Lacasse, there are some variants that are used by multiple houses because of trade agreements and alliances such as the Concord of Kapteyn and the Fedcom as well as the period of relative peace between the Draconis Combine and Federated Commonwealth rump state. As far as special board game rules and availability, the availability is hard to place as most designs have more or less proliferated greatly in one house or another, and have some numbers outside of their home state, including some designs that used to be exclusively old SLDF/Comstar and the special rules for designs were never canon rules. The only thing that some 'Mechs have special is that they can flip arms without lower arm actuators in both arms, which may be notable but isn't a requirement. I would like to state to end my response that the current format that is used gives a great deal of information to the reader without becoming so specific as to only appeal to the technophiles within BattleTech. The generality of the format also allows for the fact that even though we get the game specs for 'Mechs and also some historical information; In many cases, especially with the designs introduced since 3060, we really don't know much more than what the technical readout tells us. CJKeys 00:40, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Variant Pages?

The base variant of the design changes with each TRO that the family of designs appears in, also the Factories will often only produce one or two variants of a design, yes each variant should only be covered in broad strokes as the core variant is covered now, but would it be acceptable/ desireable to paraphrase the fluff in the TRO (or copy what is in the core page for each family of designs) and have the bare minimum specs for the variant, then the manufacturing pages could link to the specific variant that the factory manufactures. --Cameron 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit in splitting up the variants from the main article. I would be dead set against copying the fluff, because changes made to one variant would not be reflected in the articles of the others without duplicating the work.

If your only concern is linking to the specific variant, then know that that is possible within the format we have adopted. Each variant would have to be set up to be linked to, but it is not necessary to create new articles, or even new sections, to accomplish that. --Scaletail 01:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Its more the side bar that I am concerned with... Is it possible to put multiple info boxes on a page? Humm, I guess if you can do multiple tables then you can do multiple info boxes... but if possible, would the info boxes be side by side, or would they be a long line of them multiple screens long?--Cameron 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

with the Include only tag/wiki transclusion it is possible to have the Fluff section edited in only the main page. However, there are variants with their own fluff... like each TRO that features the same 'Mech name appears to have a different variant highlighted and sometimes limited fluff to go with it. So the variants from TRO 3025 would share the fluff from the main 3025 variant, but the generational improvement of that variant in 3050 would use the transcluded fluff from the 3050 variant... --Cameron 13:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, are you talking about an article for each variant, or an article for each variant that has a full TRO writeup? --Scaletail 23:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

At minimum, An article for each variant that has bonifide record sheets with the fluff transcluded from the main page for the design. At Maximum, an article for each variant that has bonifide recordsheets transcluded from the TRO variant (this would work well with TRO's linking to the era main page, and Variants would be subpages of the TRO variant of its era. Some others could feel compelled to do Family Variants, like the different life statges of the Marik Variants... (not my area of interest...)--Cameron 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

He could make a sub-page off the original article, in which the subpage has the infobox with the information he wants to display. Wikipedia discourages sub-pages, but I think it would be preferable to having multiple articles for variants (in which the core article would be lost amongst the numbers of variants). My initial concept is that the subpage would be linked to from the main article's ==variants== section. That way, if someone did come directly too a variant subpage for some reason, it would be clear it was a variant offshoot of a main article.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll come back to the same argument I've had since this discussion began. Why? Why is it necessary to create a new article for every individual variant of every 'Mech? What benefit is derived from using this format? The vast majority of variants do not have enough information to warrant their own article. While there is a lot more information on, say, the 3050 upgrades than on a variant in TRO:3060, there is still so much common information that it makes sense to keep it all together. In essence, you're arguing that the M-16 used in Vietnam should have a separate article from the M-16 used in Iraq. They're both weapons of war that evolved over time (though one's real, the other is fictional) and operate differently than similar models thirty years prior. Frankly, I like having all the information together, rather than fragmenting it among a dozen different articles. --Scaletail 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scaletail. It better keep all the information for the same design together in one page instead of having them scattered to the four winds. There designs that branched off from original designs such as Marauder II & IIC. Those are not variants but new versions of the original design. Unless its radical, that completely differient from the original. It all should be in same article. -- Wrangler 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Scaletail, I find your use of the M-16 analogy is germaine, and I think that is how the issue would be settled on Wikipedia. However, I think what Cameron is addressing is the intent to include all information that we provide in the infoboxes for each variant, with the posed question of how best to do so. Up until now, I felt having a sub-page with its sparse info was far better than having a huge main article with repeating infoboxes running down the right length. However, I think I may have a compromise: an abbreviated infobox that cuts out the general data that applies to all of a variant and the picture, and only lists the data that would be modified (weapons, BV2, cost, release date, etc.). You'll still have a column of infoboxes, but at least all of the displayed data would be relevant. (I say this as a non-P:BM member, and if the consensus is to leave the articles as they are, so be it. However, any sea-changes should be considered in light of similar other projects.)

Cameron, it would be helpful for you to weigh back in here with any comments you may have. I have no bone to pick one way or the other, but seek consistency and simplicity throughout the BTW project.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Faction Categories

FIVE-one asked a question that I've been kicking around for a while, so I finally decided to ask it. When categorizing 'Mechs by faction, do we want to give them all of the categories it would fall under per Combat Operations, or do we want to categorize it by the producer? While I can see why ComOps is the point of origin for this, I don't think we should use it to categorize 'Mech articles. It should be classified by the producer/creator. For instance, the Eagle is produced in the FWL, but sold to the CC. Since it is usable by the CC, it is listed under CC in ComOps, but it's not a Capellan 'Mech. Anybody else have an opinion? --Scaletail 21:40, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Well, I think some Clan 'Mechs were listed in other Clans because many 'Mech designs are widespread throughout the Clans due to many Trials of Possession and battle salvage. Otherwise, when a foreign is present in a "foreign" Clan, it does not automatically mean the 'Mech is produced in this Clan. In my example (the Kodiak, a totem 'Mech), the design is only produced by Clan Ghost Bear. --FIVE-one 03:00, 14 December 2007 (CST)

Since I wrote the original commentary as I was getting ready for bed, allow me to clarify. There seems to be two different ways we could categorize 'Mechs:

1. By all factions that have access to them (as is essentially done with the "General" categories). This means that even if a given faction does not build a design, then it may still be listed because it trades for it (or whatever) in significant enough quantities. The advantage of this is that is can be done using the Force Faction Tables listed in Combat Operations (or the web whenever the new one gets done). The downside is that 'Mechs again end up categorized all over the place, especially with 3025 'Mechs that now have all kinds of exclusive variants, which means they will end up with a dozen or more categories.
2. By producing faction. This would (in my mind) essentially necessitate a bastardization of the info in ComOps with some 'Mechs being "General" (available to all factions- Clan or IS) and others "belonging" to one faction.

This is an issue that I have basically tabled because I believe the members of this project were waiting to finish all of the 'Mech articles before we decided what path to take, but I think we are sufficiently close to completion that it is something we can discuss. I prefer the second way, myself. It may (may!) be slightly more problematic in certain instances, but I think it is the more appropriate way to deal with this here. --Scaletail 15:00, 14 December 2007 (CST)

This essentially tackles what I intended to do with a section about "proliferation" in my above suggestion to improve the 'Mech templates. For a roleplayer like me, any 'Mech could show up anywhere if it can be explained by a feasible backstory. Some unusual cases are even canon: A particular Black Thorns warrior is a fugitive from a Capellan Warrior House who brought his Raven 'Mech, and vice versa a WH Hiritsu warrior rides one of three Tomahawks in the Capellan Confederation in the novel Binding Force where the history of the 'Mech is even explained in some detail. Any 'Mech design could turn up as salvage, anywhere. It comes down to the fact that no table or categoy could ever do the proliferation justice, regardless of whether they are categorized by producer, designer, or whatever. It will always be a grey area and should be noted as "proliferation" in each individual 'Mech entry. Frabby 15:23, 14 December 2007 (CST)

I see the problem with listing a 'Mech within a certain faction (solely because it served in that faction's military) as one of over-saturation. I can acknowledge that /will/ become a problem, if the standard is any single mention of a 'Mech type within a faction merits its inclusion as /available/ to that faction as a whole. However, like the faction lists of ComOps and the ones placed in the newer tomes, there is value in a User being able to see what unit types a faction can muster.

I'd suggest a compromise somewhere in between: if the only mention of a unit type ('Mech, ASF, whatever) is that of a Hero one (i.e., the unit itself becomes a character because of its uniqueness), then it is not 'fielded' by that faction. Instead, units are only fielded by a faction if the canon suggests they are included in military formations and are not assumed to be special because of their uniqueness. Ex: Sergeant Milhouse of the 25th Lyran Whatevers pilots a family 'Mech (of the PIB-27 Puss-In-Boots variety) that he brought with him when he defected from the Kuritans. However, the canon mentions the same battalion fields that 'Mech type because of a large cache found back in 2927 and they've been keeping the formation suitably supplied. In the first case by itself, the Lyrans don't field the PIB-27, so the article would't merit be categorized with the Lyrans. However, in the case of the second, the article would. In other words, if the only mention is of 'Mechs being fielded because of singular, unique reasons, they don't warrant being categorized as that faction's. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:05, 14 December 2007 (CST)

Frabby, I don't know what you intend to do with "proliferation," nor what you expect anybody else to do. Perhaps if you could give an example, or tell me where this information could be found it would help. I don't think this will be an issue if we choose to base our decision on a canon source. ComOps has a list of what factions field significant quantities of what units, so we can use that as the guide and nothing else if we would like. I agree that every faction fields at least one of almost every 'Mech in production. For example, there are Dragons all over place. I suspect that the FedSuns field a somewhat significant number of them, but it is still thought of as a Combine BattleMech, so BTW should reflect that. Similarly, any unit that is not listed under the "General" list in ComOps should be categorized by the producing faction(s) only. --Scaletail 19:19, 15 December 2007 (CST)

Having read this discussion a couple of different times, I have come up with another solution, as I dislike the current situation. I understand that people want to know generally what factions field what units in significant quantities, and it's something that I agree should be included, though I still think a numbered system is unrealistic. I also believe that trying to use categories to provide this information is simply not up to the task. The compromise would be to put this information in the body of the article. In addition to the design history and stats in the "Description" section, we can also include info about what factions field the unit (based upon the tables in ComOps and more updated info). This then allows us to condense the categories and only put 'Mechs in one faction category. --Scaletail 18:32, 29 July 2008 (CDT)

I agree with Scaletail mostly. The categories should be supported with textual evidence, or it would be even better if the mechs used by the factions would be articles, which would allow us to remove the faction categories completely. This would really be an improvement because each editor has different views on when a mech should be listed under a category. --Neufeld 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Project Units?

Given that most of the BattleMech articles have been completed, I was wondering what the project's members thought about expanding the scope of it. Obviously, work will still need to be done on the 'Mech articles long after all the ones that are currently in existence have articles, but I believe that the standards created here can be applied to almost any unit. For this reason, I propose expanding Project BattleMechs into "Project Units" (the name is certainly not set in stone), under which all articles for units would fall. This would include 'Mechs, combat vehicles, aerospace fighters, JumpShips, DropShips, WarShips, ProtoMechs, and battle armor. I believe the main advantages of this would be using what has already been done on the BattleMech articles to create new unit articles without having to reinvent the wheel, as well as presenting a unified feel for all articles on units. --Scaletail 11:08, 21 December 2007 (CST)

I absolutely agree. You guys accomplished so much while I was deployed, it is simply amazing. Its got my support. (Guess the project would need a new user banner.) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:10, 21 December 2007 (CST)

Age of Destruction Era 'Mechs

I would like to create some Clan exclusives 'Mechs, that I use to fight with in MechWarrior : Age of Destruction. However I don't have any photo from any TRO about those, seen there is no TRO speaking about those beasts, only 'Mech dossier which are given with their 'Mechs. Those contains some impressive images I might add if you allow me to do so, with a link to the original dossier .PDF on Wizkids Official Site. I already have three entries I can create : Shrike (like Melvina Hazen's one), Gyrfalcon and Eyrie plus the Jade Hawk. I can do so with other Clan exclusives like the Sun Cobra, Wulfen and Warwolf (Clan Wolf), Karhu (Clan Ghost Bear/Rasalhague Dominion), Cave Lion (Clan Nova Cat/Spirit Cats; Ocelot is already done). (I'm not sure but I think the Ghost can be added as a Clan Nova Cat one.) --FIVE-one 14:17, 5 January 2008 (CST)

We haven't yet decided what we want to do with with the MW:DA/AoD 'Mechs, but I think most of them can be included using the same format we have now. TPTB have hinted that a new TRO may be on the way soon(ish), so I think we will eventually have the info to fill in whatever gaps exist. I'd say go for it, and if you run into any significant problems, ask for specific help. --Scaletail 15:23, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Cool, the only question I would have is how to handle the references from the dossiers. --MEC 17:58, 5 January 2008 (CST)

While I don't play AoD or own anything from it, I have seen a lot of the stuff WK put up on their website. I would recommend using the title of the card ("Jupiter Technical Readout card", for example) and providing a link to the .pdf on the website if its available. I see that the alphanumerical designation of the card has been used, but that's personally of no use to me, though more info cannot hurt. I'm not sure how much sense that makes, but hopefully I'm not way out in left field. --Scaletail 18:19, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I propose that DA/AoD variants of 'Mechs are placed into their own section. Agree/disagree? --Scaletail 18:18, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

I would agree if it was clear the design only existed in DA/AoD era only. As I am putting in MWDA record sheet book's listing in myself, I've found that example DA Koshi is a non-OmniMech, but it has no fluff other than data cards/dossiers. The DA Koshi is currently listed with it OmniMech parent. Is possible to list DA Koshi as Koshi (2nd), so not be confused with the original? By having (2nd) instead of Koshi 2, it would be less confusing and avoid worrying if it has a pre or post Jihad introduction date. Other 'Mechs with similar non-Omni variants include the DA Black Hawk which is likely new design since Old Nova is out production as of the 3050 Upgrade.

Like the video game variants below, I was really referring to variants of existing 'Mechs that just don't have CBT stats. On the specific subjects of the Black Hawk and Koshi, do you have any sources that state the variants are not modifications to the OmniMechs? I can't imagine why a 'Mech that is the same tonnage with the same name would be an entirely different 'Mech. The new variants could simply be modifications of existing Black Hawks. --Scaletail 08:50, 15 March 2009 (PDT)

Video game entries

This has been put off, but, since the issue has come up, I believe it is time to address what to do with video-game exclusive 'Mechs and variants. I personally believe that any variants that do not have corresponding stats in CBT should be given their own section and denoted as video game-only variants. 'Mech articles on video game-exclusive designs should be clearly and prominently labeled as such. I give the floor to everybody else. --Scaletail 18:54, 28 January 2008 (CST)

What exactly do you mean by Video Game only, like 'Mechs from Mektek that were modded into MW4, like the Gesu, Deimos, or the Thanatos XMT? --Quicksilver Kalasa 22:34, 18 August 2008 (CDT)

Variants of 'Mechs or entirely new 'Mechs that do not have official CBT stats, yet are clearly part of BattleTech. In a sense, this will be based on whatever is decided in the canonicity discussion that is wrapping up. For an example of how I have done this, see Shootist. --Scaletail 07:49, 19 August 2008 (CDT)

TRO 3039 Variants

I searched for two 'Mech variants(COM-1D Commando & FS9-K Firestarter)and both are missing, both appeared for the first time in the TRO3039. Are the new 'Mechs/variants from the TRO3039 not yet entered?--BigDuke66 13:44, 15 June 2009 (PDT)

If they're in 3039, then they should be in the article. Feel free to update the article accordingly. Good catch. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:17, 15 June 2009 (PDT)

Related Design/Chasis

I feel something in the 'Mech descriptions is missing from the wiki entries. 'Mech designs are frequently described to be related (either by chasis, component, or configuration) to classic BattleMechs. However, some derivative design information is missing, especially from the entries for the parent designs (but sometime on both the parent and derivative entry). For example:

Marauder - Rakshasa (TRO 3055, p. 72), Dragon Fire (TRO 3058, p. 128), Maelstrom (TRO 3058, p. 130), Nightsky (TRO:3058, p144)

Vindicator - Snake (TRO 3055, p. 38)

In cases with iconic BattleMechs and their derivative designs, can we list all of the designs which are explicitly described as related (in the fluff) to a parent design? In this regard, I am only suggesting a subsection giving all related designs, distinct from variants. These entries would not go into detail about capabilities. People would only see a link and a short sentence describing the relationship, and could follow the trail on their own to find out more. Maybe even include a family tree for the design. What do you think?--S.gage 11:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would recommend either following the existing format of listing them at the end of the "Variants" section or noting it in the body of the text. I'm not too sure about the family tree, though, since it's not like that would go very far. --Scaletail 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Question : Nightsky? Perhaps you meant Nightstar? :) The Nightsky was like a second-generation Hachetman. Nightstar was a 95-ton cross between a Marauder II and a Turkina. ClanWolverine101

New Category?

Do we have a separate category tag for BattleMechs and variants exclusively produced for Royal BattleMech Regiments, like the EMP-6A Emperor or the MAD-1R Marauder? Thanks--S.gage 21:22 (EDT) 12 August 2009

No. --Scaletail 00:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

C3i Mechs

Question : Should all C3i Mechs be assumed to be either WoB or Comstar? They are the only groups known to use it, IIRC. I ask because I was thinking of going through the C3i category and distribute them accordingly (sometimes both Comstar and WoB). ClanWolverine101

Armor Tonnages

Revanche suggeste that I drop this idea here, so here goes.
Basically, i'd like to add the tonnage of a mechs armor to the infobox. For example, with an Atlas, the armor section of the info box would say "Armor: 19 tons of duralex heavy special". Unfortunatly I only have the 3050/3055 TRO's so I would need a fair bit of help to get all the mechs completed. If anyone thinks it's worth it and can help out with it, it would be much appreciated. Mop no more 01:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your idea, but I would point out that the infoboxes don't cover the variants, just the originals. So with the Atlas, you'd be looking at whatever they were using in the 3025 TRO. (Which was probably still duralex heavy special.) Also : note the huge difference in armor value if you use a variation of Ferro-Fibrous. ClanWolverine101

That's not really my point. My idea is simply to add whatever tonnage of armour the mech carries, to the infobox. Variants could then easily say ".... Drops two tons of armour" or say that the variant now mounts ferro-fibrous. I'm not focusing so much on the actual point value being added, just the tonnage. It is considerably easier to work out the point value then when compared to having no tonnage mentioned at all.

Does that make sense? Mop no more 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'm all for adding more game info to the infoboxes. ClanWolverine101

Great. In that case, I'll Try it out on the Atlas and unless i get a negative response within a few days, I'll start adding it to the 3050/3055 mechs that i can.— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Mop no more (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 March 2010 .

Ok, I have started adding the tonnage of armor to the mechs infobox's seeing as i've recieved no negative feedback. If anyone can help, please help by all means. this could take quite a while on my own... Mop no more 07:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response. I was taking a break and noticed your edits before this discussion. I don't like the idea of changing this, primarily because we're trying to keep to the look of the TROs in the InfoBox and this is a deviation from that. In many cases, the information is already given in the body of the article.

I would also like to address something else you have said, though it doesn't directly impact this discussion. We have wanted to avoid people being able to create record sheets based upon the information contained in these articles, especially with regards to a few aspects of every design, such as the "point value" of the armor. Some aspects of the 'Mech articles are written deliberately vague, e.g. "as much armor as it's weight can hold", rather than giving a specific number. Most articles also don't list the number of heat sinks for a similar reason. In essence, this is because this website is on a relatively shaky legal ground and we'd like to avoid giving anybody official a reason to care enough to shut us down. --Scaletail 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I see your point there. I'll go and change back the articles I've already done then if they haven't already been fixed by someone else. Thanks for letting me know in time, i was about to finish off both of the TRO's that i own this weekend. — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Mop no more (talk • contribs) on 19 March 2010.

BV 1.0

Should we still have BV 1.0 in infoboxes? --Neufeld 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for the time being. I've thought about this too (it'll be rather easy to turn off), but I'm of the mind that until a master BV list is issued or once all of the core books are out, then there are still people who can't be expected to be up on the 'latest' system. Its a bit more complicated than the two-month moratorium. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Unlike Revanche, I don't think it will ever go away. We're trying to collect every minutiae from BattleTech, so why not this, too? --Scaletail 02:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Deployment & users

Info about deployment and users seems to be missing from most mech pages. I suggest that we add a policy about adding such a section to mech pages. The Catagory:Faction X tags seems to cause more questions than answers. --Neufeld 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm all for adding those ==sections== to the QuckStart page, but I believe this bears some further discussion. (Posting this on the Main page's chatterweb section.) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a Project BattleMechs guideline that we only include important MechWarriors (i.e. main characters) in the 'Mech articles, so, in many cases, having none is complete. The 'Mech articles on BTW are not meant to be, nor should they ever be, barely-reworded technical readouts. I don't know why "deployment" was left out of the original template, but I don't know a compelling reason to include it, either; "because it's there" is not satisfactory to me.

The categories for 'Mechs have been problematic. There has been discussion about the faction categories, but I don't believe consensus was ever reached. --Scaletail 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For me the reason is all the questions about why is mech X and mech Y listed under factions A and B from ClanWolverine101. So we shoudl either add a deployment section or remove the faction categories. --Neufeld 07:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding TRULY notable pilots : Most of the "notable pilots" from the TROs are, frankly, nobodies. I've made it a point to put major character notable pilots on mech articles, and also to add "Battlemech note" sections in major character bios where appropriate. (Not every major character was known for being a mech jock.) Never is this an issue with the TROs. ClanWolverine101

Also : Yeah, notes on deployment would be cool. Many mechs have unusual deployments; look at the Spider/Venom, which was primarily built at an FWL factory but primarily used by DCMS mechs. I've challenged some of the faction-portal categories - sometimes I've removed them, other times, people point out that one of the TRO Upgrades specifically states the distribution to a certain faction that one might not expect. (Take the Dragon Fire, which by the book was produced at a Lyran factory, but was apparently sold mostly to the DCMS, and was later exclusive to WoB.) I may start adding this. ClanWolverine101

I use Combat Operations for the faction categories, that way there is no guesswork. I agree that there are certain instances, such as the ones Wolverine listed, where the deployment is notable; however, most of the deployment description is in regards to one or two specific units that have some of the 'Mechs and a description of a battle where the 'Mech was used. I don't think most of those are important for the 'Mech article, though it may be worthwhile to include in the article for the command. --Scaletail 23:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal : The Faction portal category tags should have reference citations attached. Sound better? ClanWolverine101 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can. I had honestly never given it thought before, so I tested out referencing a category, and it just looks like a footnote with no text attached to it. It would be impossible to tell what is cited. I like the idea, but I don't think the technology supports it. --Scaletail 00:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As it looks as if the discussion has wound down, I would say consensus was not reached. I'd suggest that interested parties demonstrate, through a handful of 'Mechs, what the benefits are to adding additional sections and then re-engage the discussion.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's a demonstration: Hornet. Deployment section added, and user category without textual evidence removed. --Neufeld 12:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that there are some 'Mechs, such as the Venom and Hornet, that have notable deployments in that the Venom is odd because it is produced in one state and used in another, while the Hornet's is key because it went through a sort of live-fire proving. I think the deployment section in most TROs is more like the Snow Fox, which restates that the 'Mech is a second-line unit and says the Ice Hellion's Zeta Galaxy has a lot of them. It's not really important to the 'Mech and restates information from earlier in the entry. Obviously, there are 'Mechs for which they way they are deployed is notable, but I don't think that's the case for the majority. I see no problem adding this info into the "Description" section for articles where it is appropriate, but I don't think it should be mandated for all of them. --Scaletail 01:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you supporting inclusion of significant deployemts (as you detailed above) in the Descriptions section, or just the 'mentioned' usage? In other words, do you allow for a Deployments section, when there is significant cause? (Seeking clarification.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We also have to discuss if we should allow Category:UserX type tags to be used without supporting text. --Neufeld 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The info on the hornet was impressive, IMHO, and it served the purpose I've been pushing. I want to try a similar approach myself to a couple of other mechs that have unusual deployments, and I'll check back here to see if people like them. ClanWolverine101 17:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that I don't think a "Deployment" section is necessary, but that it is important in the development of certain 'Mechs. The Hornet's story, for instance, is wrapped up in the FedSuns' acceptance of the design and agreement to greater production runs. I don't see why that can't go in the "Description" section. My concern is that a dedicated "Deployment" section leads to the implication that any article without one is incomplete, so here's what I say: include the information using the existing template, where appropriate, for any and every article that it is germane to. I'll even make a suggestion for an article that would be improved by the addition, No-Dachi. That's a case where the way it was deployed led to its acceptance within the DCMS and widespread adoption by that faction. I just don't think the deployment information warrants inclusion for every single 'Mech.

Neufeld, if you scroll up, you will find an existing discussion on faction categories. Please add your comments there on that subject. --Scaletail 00:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, continuing discussion there. --Neufeld 16:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as an impartial observer and admin towards this discussion, I've seen Neufeld's suggested example and ClanWolverine101's support for it, but also Scaletail's suggestion that discussion of 'Mech useage remain in the "Description" sections. As there has been no return to consensus seeking following Scaletail's remarks, it appears consensus is to keep 'Mech articles as they are presently.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Apocryphal Mechs

Question : Would a Apocryphal Mech go in the same category as the other mechs, albeit with the Apocryphal tags? I'm thinking about adding the Ragnarok mech from the MechWarrior (1992 Video Game) SNES game. Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 04:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds right. I think it might be a good idea to only put it in the "BattleMechs" category, since the other, specialized categories are generally more geared towards CBT. --Scaletail 00:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh - no problem. As I feel the subcategories are over-used anyway. Can I get a link to the template? ClanWolverine101 01:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Help:CreateMechArticle This one? --Scaletail 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Deployment and Users - Part II

The previous convo had grown too long and unwieldy in my case. Better to start off anew. I am formally proposing we put up information fields covering the Deployment & Users for every Battlemech. Obviously, this is a large project, and in the case of some of the clans, we probably don't have enough material to work with at this time. Nevertheless, I feel it deserves consideration. I am NOT proposing we copy anything verbatim from the TROs; merely that we use it as a resource as we have always done. In my mind, one of the most important elements of any mech is "Who actually uses it in significant numbers?" as opposed to "Who may have salvaged a couple, refitted to their own variant, inevitably being added to the faction portal system?" These are not simple questions.
So - who is with me on this one? ClanWolverine101 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I will restate my position from above. In many cases this information is important, but not all. If an editor feels it is, add the information in the "Description" section. I do not support a section being added to every 'Mech article that calls for "deployment" information. --Scaletail 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scaletail on this one. In my opinion the notable warrior information and faction deployment information should be a part of the Description section. I think adding an extra section is overkill for most of the 'Mechs.--Mbear 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think ClanWolverine101 has a point. Early on when I joined the BTW team I suggested a revamp of the 'Mech articles, to include data on manufacturing centers and proliferation. I realize this is a task of daunting magnitude, but I'd still like to see that kind of info on the 'Mech pages. Personally, I feel it's far more valuable than BV. And most articles need a rewrite anyways, much descriptive text is both uninformative and awkward. Frabby 20:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Frabby, if any of the information you have described is available in a canon source and is not in the 'Mech articles already, then I encourage you to add it. I'm unclear what your position is with relation to CW's proposal. --Scaletail 23:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to concede (for the moment) the part about a "Deployment" section. I will fight to the death in a circle of equals anyone who fights the "notable pilot" section, even if it doesn't apply to most mechs. ClanWolverine101 01:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Faction Categories redux

The faction categories are a mess and need some guidance. Various ideas have been thrown about for years, but none have stuck. Since it's been almost two years since I proposed this idea regarding the faction categories, I'm going to re-propose it:

“

any 'Mech that is not listed under the "General" list (be it Clan General or Inner Sphere General) in Combat Operations (or its successor, should one ever be finished) should be categorized by the original producing faction(s) only, unless a canon source states otherwise.

”

By way of example, the Fenris would be categorized as Clan General and the Locust as Inner Sphere General. Raptor would be categorized as a Combine 'Mech, Warlord as a FedSuns design. Obviously, there will be some that don't fit this mold well, but this should probably be applicable to 90% of 'Mech articles. --Scaletail 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this. I have seen a number of mech/vehicle articles that fall under both "IS General" and under one or more factions. I believe allowing this reflects that its possible for a unit to qualify for "General" status, but for it also to be worth noting that its particularly common with one or more factions. I suppose you could argue that this shouldn't be such an issue with 3025 era mechs : In the days of pitifully few functioning factories, most mechs did become "IS General" simply from salvaging each other. For example, Liao seemed to have had a decent number of "Atlas" mechs despite never seeming to have produced it. But in the "current" era where we've seen over a hundred new mechs over the past few years, most built by only a single faction, this has become more relevant. Some, like the Grand Titan, were distributed so widely to be considered "IS General". Many others were not, and if the Capellan Confederation has a couple of "Gunslingers", they probably salvaged them from Davion forces they beat.

Make sense? ClanWolverine101 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's counter-intuitive. Either a 'Mech is generally available to all factions, or it's particular to a subset. "General", I think, implies that the 'Mech is fielded in roughly equal numbers by most factions that fall under that heading, and, therefore, is particularly identified with none.

Part of the goal of my suggestion is to tie the categories, at least in part, to a particular, canon source. This allows for less discrepancy, which has been a constant problem with no resolution. In this case, yes, both the Grand Titan and Atlas would be considered "General". --Scaletail 02:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to thing that the use of category tags should be limited to that canon sourcing. Mentioning exceptions, such as the occasional influx of Ravens in AFFS forces whenever they kick the crap out of the CapCon, should stay in the text of the article. Citizen Erased 03:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you about the AFFS Ravens - that's the point I was making.

""General", I think, implies that the 'Mech is fielded in roughly equal numbers by most factions..." exactly. Do you really want to imply that the Grand Titan is not much more common with the FWL than in the DC? Or that the Zeus is as common in the Capellan Confederation as it is in the Lyran Commonwealth? I would suggest not. ClanWolverine101 17:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So are we just all making the same point in different ways? :-p Citizen Erased 19:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we broadly agree on all but the most minute of points. I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae (but here I go anyways); maybe the Grand Titan is part of my estimated 10% that is an exception to the rule (thought the Zeus is not listed in General, so it's not an exception).

I would also point out my carefully nuanced language: "most factions". Just because a design is classified as "General" does not mean that every such faction fields significant quantities; just that many do. The Atlas is actually a good example, as it has been produced by no fewer than three IS factions over its history.

What I'm really trying to get at here, is that this would be a guideline, not a set-in-stone rule. We can debate the relative factionalization of a handful of 'Mechs, but that shouldn't derail what I think this is, overall, a good compromise that is rooted in a canon source. --Scaletail 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Scaletail - I'm not sure I understand what compromise you are proposing?

I added portal links for "Wolf's Dragoons Vehicles" on a number of vehicles that were originally exclusive to the WD, and were always most common there. You ripped out my tags, using the rationale that they were already in the "IS General" category. I guess this means that by your definition, those vehicles are as common in McCarron's Armored Cavalry as they are in WD? Certainly, the vehicles were eventually made available to other factions for purchase, but that's hardly justification for classifying it as "IS General", and its certainly not justification for dropping the WD tags, given the lineage.

Again - Look at the Awesome. "IS General" mech, yes? Has not been built outside the FWL since at least the Star League.

So what exactly are you proposing? At one point, I argued for a "Deployment" section for every mech article. There were objections to that. (I believe you were one?) Now you're telling me that I can't added faction tags if its already listed under "IS General". See where I'm coming from? ClanWolverine101 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I find the faction categories annoying, and would prefer to remove them, since having the usage in the text instead of a "binary" category prevents much needless debate. Also, the category bars of the mech pages are also too cluttered. --Neufeld 06:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Earlier, I proposed dropping the "role" portals (sniper, brawler, etc.), for the simple reason that most of them were arbitrary, and with so many variants and alternate configurations, it was silly to classify all versions of a mech as suitable to any one roll. My proposal was shot down by the powers that be. As I don't use BVs too much, I also would be in favor of dropping those tags as well. (No doubt others would object.) So while I totally understand you feeling those tags have gotten too long, the faction portals are really the only ones I have much interest in. ClanWolverine101 14:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

• Neufeld sparked a possible compromise idea with me: maybe the best way to address factions is to have (if we don't already) a master list article ala Combat Operations or the forthcoming MUL to be the site's authority, rather than categories. The Wikipedian in me appreciates categories, but the list (especially if hosted on the BattleMech portal page) would serve the same purpose when properly wiki-linked and seems to me to be a possible compromise.
• CW, I'm confident you didn't mean the phrase "was shot down by the powers that be" to come across a pejorative, but to be clear to others: the Admins on this site have consistently sought to come across like any other Editor, but empowered by Nic to perform certain administrative functions in his absence. Just because a majority of viewpoints may be in opposition to another Editor's opinion, it doesn't mean the Admins are performing as the traditional Powers That Be. We go to great pains to reach consensus with our fellow Editors on all matters, but also take it upon ourselves to be conversant in existing policy. If an Editor (be it an Admin or otherwise) presents an argument against your own in a discussion, address that argument. I know for a fact each of the Admins has been swayed by a proper and correct counter argument. If we are not challenged, then you cede to the consensus policy, and not to an Admin's will. I'd be very surprised (and disappointed) if any Admin here has ever used "Because I'm the Admin" as a reason to settle anything outside of site protection. In other words, we're all Editors here and some of us have added responsibility. usually behind the scenes. We have yet had to operate as arbiters, like on Wikipedia. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud efforts by the Admins and Editors to find consensus... when such efforts are legitimately made. If you check most of my posts on various talk pages, you'll find I almost always seek to find a consensus on an issue, to the point where I will suggest we do something, and another editor will go ahead and enact it before I can do so. (Lesson : "Be Bold" I guess.)

My complaint is this : If a number of articles were made under a certain criteria (i.e. A mech or vehicle under more than one faction category, as well as IS/Clan General), and there's been no policy discussion establishing that this is not ideal (with consensus following), then people who make new edits under that criteria shouldn't have their work zapped arbitrarily by an editor, admin or otherwise. At the very least, hit up the "Discussion" page of an article and say "Hey - I think this should just be 'IS General', and here's why..." That I can always respect, even if I disagree.

For the record, my comment regarding "the powers that be" had little to do with the Admins. I proposed an action, consensus did not follow it, so it didn't go any further than that. I'm totally fine with that. Later, someone else expressed frustration with an issue that my proposal was intended to correct (in this case, some of the category-portal tags have gotten crazy).

Most of my edits to established pages are additions. Occasionally, I do edit/revise obvious typos or incomplete pieces of information. If somebody's actually doing something a certain way in multiple articles, I talk with them, either on the article discussion page or their Talk page.

In other words - can't we all just get along? :P ClanWolverine101 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Let's nuke BV and faction categories. I was going to argue for BV categories after this discussion was resolved, anyways; I was just beaten to the punch. I think they're unwieldy and untenable with the format for 'Mech articles. What good is knowing that one variant is within a 500 point range? I don't think categories are the right way to convey this information.

As for faction categories, nobody can agree on how to use them. I've tried and tried over the years to reach consensus on a way for them to make sense, any way; I'm not really particular at this point. Unfortunately, they've devolved into a hodgepodge of nonsense because every editor who wants to can put their own stamp on what they mean, meaning that they've come to mean absolutely nothing. At this point, everybody thinks they should fulfill a different purpose, which means we'll never come to agreement on them. --Scaletail 01:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad we can actually agree on something. As I've said before, my ideal solution to the faction/portal issue would be a "Deployment" section under every relevant article. There's a reason why they used these in the TROs. But I understand that I am in the minority, so I've attempted to work with the faction portals. ClanWolverine101 03:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that having a "Deployment" heading in articles would be fine, so long as it isn't just a regurgitation from the page of the TRO. The usefulness of the faction tags, in my mind, was to have a page they linked to that listed the 'Mechs common to a given faction - something that could be done with what Revanche said about having a Master Unit List page. Citizen Erased 18:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)