Editing Talk:Bull Shark

==TT conversion==
I'm a bit concerned, how that 'Mech will actually be possible by TT rules.
LBX/10: 6 crits, UAC/5: 5 crits ... Arm with UA and shoulder actuators: 10 free crits.

I sure do hope, the PC game will not go into that terretory, where the roots are completely abandoned.

:The weapons it comes with in the game are special "+++" variants, so even in the game it won't work with standard UAC/5s and LBX10s.  I think they're meant to be either one-offs or early Clan-tech.

::Aren't there tabletop rules for splitting weapons that don't fit in the arms onto the torso?

:::I attempted to recreate it using mech factory. Everything checks out if you use clan tech. I had to work to hit that 95 ton limit. The BSK-M3 is impossible without using "improved" AC-10's to knock off the extra crit location. This is the link. 

https://battletech.rpg.hu/mechfactory_frame.php

==Wolverine Connection==
Is it worth mentioning the implied Clan Wolverine connection?
[[User:Beast GTS|Beast GTS]] ([[User talk:Beast GTS|talk]]) 16:18, 29 November 2019 (EST)

:A bit of math makes it seem like the Bull Shark has a speed of about 55km/h. Also in teh game its said that the ship the Bull Shark was on was SLDF, so it would make a bit of sense that the Bull Shark was made during Clan Wolverines destruction, as they did make several new BattleMechs and Weapons. Thats all speculation however.[[User:Lightninglash|Lightninglash]] ([[User talk:Lightninglash|talk]]) 16:11, 7 December 2019 (EST)

::We can include the Wolverine connection in the article but it needs to be done in such a way that speculation is kept to a minimum. Same with the speed thing, we can work out the speed by comparing it to other units that we already know the canon speeds of but unless we are given hard numbers it is still speculation and needs to be expressed as such.

::On another note, welcome to Sarna folks, if you need any help just give me a shout!--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 16:28, 7 December 2019 (EST)

The original Bull Shark you salvage has Wolverine artwork / emblems on it (mentioned in dialog), and the 'SLDF' ship that it comes from is called the Dobrev (Wolverine Bloodname).  I'll try to get the exact quote about the artwork before adding anything.  [[User:Beast GTS|Beast GTS]] ([[User talk:Beast GTS|talk]])

"Interestingly, the insignia on the chassis pieces we found depicts a predatory Terran mammal.  A Wolverine, if I'm not mistaken.  A curious choice of heraldry to adorn a Battlemech named for a shark." --[[User:Beast GTS|Beast GTS]] ([[User talk:Beast GTS|talk]]) 02:09, 23 December 2019 (EST)


==Tech Base==
I think that it should be marked as a Mixed (IS), due to fact that I've attempted to build MSK variant for TT, yet it's impossible with the purely IS components. With Clan ones - seems to be more feasible. And making sense about Un-named Clan connection. [[User:ManganMan|ManganMan]] ([[User talk:ManganMan|talk]]) 07:07, 8 December 2019 (EST)
:The [[Pulverizer]], [[Stag]] and [[Mercury II]] all use Star League tech. It is a major plot point in [[Betrayal of Ideals]] that the wolverines started BattleMech research two years prior to their annihilation. The Wolverines tech  (and Clan tech in general) had not had enough time to develop enough to be considered a different tech base. We know they have an [[Enhanced ER PPC]], possibly one or two other components.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 08:34, 8 December 2019 (EST)
:: Regardless, as far as anyone can tell, there was no Inner Sphere version of the ER Medium Laser until sometime during the Clan Invasion era; the Clans had theirs first, and the BSK-MAZ had four of the things. They are also, proportionately at least given the vanilla game did not distinguish between Clan and Inner Sphere tech, as powerful as the Clan version. There’s also similar weirdness going on with the autocannons, as they do not come with the Inner Sphere standard stats, but effective Clan-spec stats. Wolverine may not have canonically had access to this stuff… but it’s not the first time video games have played fast and loose with this sort of continuity.--[[User:Akamia|Akamia]] ([[User talk:Akamia|talk]]) 04:47, 5 May 2024 (EDT)

==Example Case for Policy Discussion==
What a time for Discord to go down!  Over in Discord we were discussing a revision of [[Policy:Images]] to allow for use of screenshots as a citable source for certain types of articles, most notably the Apocryphal-but-still-official Video Games.  (And possibly the cartoons, but let's start here.) After [[User:Revanche|Revanche]] challenged me to come up with a new policy statement and seek consensus on it, I started digging in and realized the ''first'' thing we needed was an ''example!'' This being a 'Mech exclusive to a game, and the article lacking much in the way of references, I chose it as testbed. I have uploaded two screenshots from the game, one showing the stock loadout and the other showing dialogue that backs up the assertion that it may be a Clan Wolverine 'Mech.  Here's the current challenges to getting this ready as an example:
:# Artist: Just because I took the screenshot doesn't make me the artist.  [[User:Cache|Cache]], what do you recommend?
:# Citation: linking the file from the citation tries to insert the whole image into the references section.  The example given from [[Policy:Images]] does not seem to be actually ''cited'' anywhere, so we have to decide what format to use for that. I did my best but invite discussion and improvement.
:# Gallery: it seemed appropriate to put referenced images in the gallery. Agree/Disagree?
:# License: the existing policy for a different use-case notes Public Domain as the license.  That will not work for this, and I chose Fair Use.  Discuss if needed.
Let's try to get this set up as a good example, and then we can write a policy proposal based off it. --[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 14:04, 8 March 2022 (EST)
:Forgot 5. Category: what category do those images go in?--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 14:11, 8 March 2022 (EST)
:And since a concern was raised elsewhere: I do not intend to have a major policy debate here: I want to get this page fixed up as an example of how it *might* look, and then open a Request-for-Consensus over on the talk page for Policy:Images.  We're just discussing how to improve this specific article for now--and if it gets voted down, we edit or revert back to pre-image-refs.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 14:46, 8 March 2022 (EST)
::My 2 cents...<br>1) Will we ever find the multiple artists responsible for each model? Put your username followed by (screenshot) to specify.<br>2) Have you tried placing a colon before the file callouts?<nowiki> 
 :File:Image.jpg</nowiki><br>3) Gallery, no. Category, yes.<br>5) Create a category. Apocryphal Reference Screenshots or something like that.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 14:57, 8 March 2022 (EST)
:::Thanks, I will give all of those a try.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 14:59, 8 March 2022 (EST)

::::Cache, jumping on this not to persuade you, but to understand. If there is an article, such as with Bull Shark, that seeks to include additional images, why would they not be displayed on the article page? (I have an assumed answer, but want to see your  take is.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 17:51, 8 March 2022 (EST)

:::::That's a good point, and I had the forum/Discord style screenshots on my mind when I said it. I have no problem with them being put in the article.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 18:58, 8 March 2022 (EST)
::::::I'll add them back in, then.  It will remove the problem of "Now it looks like the file is not used."  --[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 19:00, 8 March 2022 (EST)

::::::Thanks, Cache. I was ''not'' expecting that. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:25, 8 March 2022 (EST)
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==HeavyMetal conversion==
-Today I tried to build such an Bull Shark with Level2 min; a Thumper is huge enough to fill the Torso complete and need 13 slots, so it needs distributing as a basic. Without an XL engine (to gain slots) and all weapons and no arms, I have no armor at all. I used an 3/5 (=285) Engine, the Dual UAC5 + LB10X and four ER Mediums and the mentioned ammo. With an 285XL I get 8,5t of armor which is daring but I will get everything in but the distribution does not work as described. {{Unsigned|Samvanratt}}
-:Hi, Samvanratt.  Sarna is a lore wiki that primarily works to document what's out there, we don't really deal with this sort of content.  The BattleTech Video Game is Apocryphal: some of it is Canon, but details like what you describe that conflict with Canon are ignored.   The Official Forums over at bg.battletech.com likely have some discussions going somewhere about how to recreate the Bull Shark in-game.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 10:38, 5 July 2022 (EDT)
-::Again, Sarna is not a discussion forum for this topic, per policy.  I recommend [https://bg.battletech.com/forums/computerconsole-games/ Seeking an appropriate thread here.]--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 10:50, 5 July 2022 (EDT)
-:::I wouldn’t say we have a strict "lore only" policy in place. And it is indeed relevant for the subject matter that the design cannot be built under CBT construction rules (there are a handful others, canonical even, for which this is true). In a pinch there’s always the "Illegal" Quirk as a possible copout - we even have at least one vehicle to canonically have that quirk.
-:::So Samvanratt, while Talvin is technically correct, please don’t consider that a rejection of the point you’re making. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 11:01, 5 July 2022 (EDT)
-:::: Hi Frabby and Talvin; that's why I put this under "discussion" because the article "demands" talking about it so it might fit into. Cheers
 ==TT conversion==
 I'm a bit concerned, how that 'Mech will actually be possible by TT rules.
@@ Line 65: / Line 52: @@
 ::::::Thanks, Cache. I was ''not'' expecting that. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:25, 8 March 2022 (EST)
-== Appearances in optional content ==
-Hi, I've noted that the article lists Bull Sharks as being exclusive to HBS's Battletech, so far.  However, I've seen evidence they've been added to Piranha's Mechwarrior 5 as well.
-Now here's the thing.  The addition of the Bull Shark is accomplished via the installation of optional content called a 'mod(ification)'.  It's freely available, but not everyone will choose to install it - and a console player is prevented from doing so at all, consistently with the walled-garden design of those ecosystems.
-Is your take that I ought to edit to reflect that the Bull Shark appears in MW5 because it can, or that I oughtn't because it usually won't?{{Unsigned|69.110.170.231}}
-:Assuming the MW5 mod is official (as opposed to fan-created), I reckon it’s worth noting, if only to be precise in the article about where this 'Mech is featured. Canon-wise, MW5 is MWO's twin brother so no change there. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:28, 17 May 2022 (EDT)
-::Agreeing with Frabby, here.  If it is ''official'' DLC, something put out by the MW5 developers, that should be noted.  If it is a Fan-made mod, however, that runs afoul of [[Policy:Fanon]], and doesn't belong here.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 08:08, 17 May 2022 (EDT)
-:::The mod is not official, PGI have only released one official mod in the form of the infantry patch. The fan-made PirateTech mod has the Bull Shark. As such it does not qualify for inclusion in the wiki's article.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 08:16, 17 May 2022 (EDT)
-== Removing Fanon from the Talk Page ==
-I know that removing discussions on the Talk Page is normally not done (outside of one's own User-space, at least), but some Fanon discussions on how to recreate the build and rules discussions are finding a home here.  I seek consensus on removing those, as the more we have, the more we'll get, and those are not what Sarna is for.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 10:54, 5 July 2022 (EDT)