Editing BattleTechWiki talk:Project Infantry Weapons

==Good start!==

Impressive start! [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks much...  lots of work... and covering 4-6 sets of game stats per article is going to be interesting... then there is the 6 sets of stat-tables...--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 04:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 

==Retroing to BTroops & 1e & 2e from 3e & 4e and BattleTech stats==
BattleTroops will be easy to retro to being that there was established BT to BTroops conversion rules... MW1e & 2e are relatively easy too... (5d6+3 = 1 BT IIRC) the question is '''''should i'''''  i may do it with a <nowiki><ref>Fanon</ref></nowiki> tag or <nowiki><ref>converted from 3e</ref></nowiki> or <nowiki><ref>converted from 4e</ref></nowiki>tag for the old school stats retroed from modern...--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 04:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

==Ohh My ...  its Full of Articles==
Humm, maybe i should start working on the infantry weapons tables for each game BT, BTROOP, RPG1e, RPG2e, RPG3e, RPG4e, will give a better idea for the scope of work--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 07:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

==Requesting a WikiProject Glyph==
Humm, Possibly the Infantrymans badge of Crossed M1 Garands superimposed over a map of the InnerSphere (3025 by preference but 3081 would be more topical).  or, a BattleTech Subsitutuion would be crossed [[Rifle, Bolt Action]] or Crossed [[Rifle, Zeus Heavy]].

==Request for Consensus==
Currently all of the stats that are given for every thing else is specificly in relation to the BattleTech Game.  Question I have is for the Infantry and Battle Armor weapons that have stats in both scales is how far should we drill down.  
#BattleTech Stats only, no RPG Stats.  
#BattleTech Stats given "Pride of Place" on the articles main page and the RPG Stats in info-boxes on article RPG Sub Page (same way articles that have Clan and IS Stats are handled), or 
#Each RPG given its own sub-page.  I am leaning to the last because I a detail obsessed, but
#the community would probably be best served if I did 5 tables ([[BattleTech]] Main, /[[BattleTroops|BTroop]], /[[MechWarrior, First Edition|RPG1e]], /[[MechWarrior, Second Edition|RPG2e]], /[[MechWarrior, Third Edition|RPG3e]], /[[A Time of War|RPG4e]] and we only had the BattleTech Stats in the articles.
--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

==Editing Help==
If there are any pages that need a particularly high amount of grammatical help, just notify me, otherwise, I don't really know where to start. Thanks. [[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 22:14, 24 June 2013 (PDT)

== Tag ==

Would it be possible for someone to make a working tag for this project? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 18:26, 8 October 2013 (PDT)

== This whole project seems to need a redesign in my opinion. ==

Overall, all the data is here. The issue is the fact that, for most weapons listed here, they're   categorized in a way that makes no sense (an Energy Weapons category (rifles, specifically) is nests under another Energy Weapons category (energy rifles) when going through what is linked in order), and there's a few issues with the articles themselves, especially naming conventions using the dreaded forward slash which makes most of the wiki text break when you try to use other functions for editing.

Is there a possible way to make a single category for all the infantry weapons, and remove the categories, and subcategories that are in the articles already? It would help to have a clean slate to start with.

Secondly, is there a way for a bot to merge all the different variations from different releases into a single article? We can go in later and merge the data into a single article. The differences for most of the items is not that great from era to era, and can, or should be explained in the article regardless. Having five seperate articles for individual weapons is counter productive, and overall doesn't look good for an outside user.

Let me know what your thoughts are on it. [[User:Admiral Obvious|Admiral Obvious]] ([[User talk:Admiral Obvious|talk]]) 22:05, 20 December 2018 (EST) [[User:Admiral Obvious|Admiral Obvious]]
:I agree. It has long bugged me just how much of a mess the Technology/Weapons/Equipment section really is. I have managed to summon enough interest in the subject within myself to take it on as a personal project beyond starting to sort out the "Brands/Models" sections of the articled. (I have kinda started but realistically it is slated as one of my bigger projects for next year.

:In truth I do not think we should have more than one article per weapon/item and sod the rules, the wiki is more a universe resource than a rules reference, that is just my thoughts though.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 02:38, 21 December 2018 (EST)

::I think the original plan was more of a "this seems like a good idea" thing, which in practice turned into the mess we have now. I know there's a bot somewhere on this wiki, which can slap the articles together and use the rule that if the weapon name matches before the forward slash, it can merge the articles. It can probably erase the old article when it's done. We can go in and merge it properly later. The wiki should have the game rules of course, but it shouldn't be detrimental to the structure of the way the system works. I don't think a layman looking in from the outside would know about (or even care about) the difference between RPG3 or A Time Of War. I know I didn't when I was introduced to the game until I ended up gathering the source books. Right now it just looks sloppy.[[User:Admiral Obvious|Admiral Obvious]] ([[User talk:Admiral Obvious|talk]]) 12:58, 21 December 2018 (EST)