Difference between revisions of "BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs"
m
 
(525 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{Template:ProjectBattleMech}}
+
[[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs/Archive|Archive]]<br />
 +
[[BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs/Archive1|Archive1]]<br />
 +
[[BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive2|Archive2]]<br />
 +
[[BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs/Archive3|Archive3]]
  
 +
== Archive, and move current discussions here. (DONE) ==
  
 +
I move that the contents of this page be moved to an Archive page, so we can bring the discussion at [[:Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]] over here where it belongs, as it has expanded well beyond the question of "Deleting a category" and moved on to "How shall we organize Mech categories, and which ones should just go?"--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:03, 21 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
:I decided to Be Bold, as some of this went back to 2010.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 14:12, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
  
−
== Articles: base model only or all variants? ==
+
==Categories==
−
* 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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 14:19, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
+
Over at [[:Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]] I decided to revive the debate on whether to delete the category or remove the deletion tag. Responses were swift and vigorous, showing that over three years later we do not have consensus on this.  Other topics relating to Mech Categories also were brought up.  
−
**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. --[[User:CJKeys|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? --[[User:Revanche|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. --[[User:CJKeys|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]]. [[User:Nicjansma|Nicjansma]] 00:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 
−
*Consensus has us tabling this until the Project has hit the Base Model Articles milestone. Thanks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 00:24, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 
  
−
== Separate Articles Based on Universe? ==
+
'''I am doing my best to lay out the positions and arguments I have seen raised in public and in private or in a couple cases in my head. If I forgot yours or misrepresent yours, please assume good faith and just politely correct in a comment.''' Also note that these are not necessarily my views, some of them will contradict each other.
−
*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.  --[[User:Revanche|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. --[[User:CJKeys|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? --[[User:Revanche|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. --[[User:CJKeys|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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 00:26, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 
  
−
== Cost Included? ==
+
* We have too many categories for Mechs, especially with our limited volunteer availability.
−
*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? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 15:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
+
* Faction Categories are generally supposed to be for who ''produces'' what.
−
**Cost woudl be cool both in the base model box and the varaits. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 22:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
+
* We have Faction Categories that are about availability, like Category:Mercenary General BattleMechs (no longer used)
−
*Consensus has Cost as a new table to be added to the BattleMech InfoBox. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 00:27, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
+
* Omni/Standard/Industrial categories for both Clan and IS tech base are useful.
 +
* Category trees should not overlap without a very good reason.
 +
* Meta-categories should contain only other categories, not individual articles.  Example: if we are going to have [[:Category:Standard BattleMechs]] and [[:Category:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]] underneath it, the [[Akuma]] should be categorized to Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs, and ''not'' in ''both''.
 +
* BattleMech refers to all dedicated combat Mech chassis, be they "Standard" BattleMechs, OmniMechs, LAMs, QuadVees, or something we haven't seen yet. So we need Standard BattleMech to distinguish from those others.
 +
* Standard BattleMech is redundant.  BattleMechs are not OmniMechs are not QuadVees are not LAMs.  (Query, does "Standard" get used in this way in any official source, or is it a fandom/Sarna thing?)
 +
* As the storyline has advanced, the distinction between "Clan" and "Inner Sphere" is blurring, with more and more units that draw from both.  We need to decide how to handle that moving forward.
 +
* Categorizing Mechs by Tech Base is trying to outMUL the MUL.
 +
* Categorizing Mechs by Faction Production is trying to outMUL the MUL.
 +
* Categorizing Mechs by Faction Availability is trying to outMUL the MUL.
 +
* Categorizing Mechs by Tonnage is trying to outMUL the MUL.
  
−
== TRO in HTML form ==
+
There is one item I think we have some kind of consensus on:
−
*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? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 15:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
+
* We really need to have a constructive conversation, or perhaps several in parallel, about Mech Categories. It's a mess.
−
**In the later stanges, maybe when we start to go to making a page for each variant?? --[[User:CJKeys|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. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 00:28, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 
  
 +
I will come back with my own thoughts in separate comments.  I am organizing this as best I can, if you feel it can be done better let's have a constructive talk about that.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:00, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
  
−
== Omnis in the title ==
+
I have noticed several times that you have mentioned that we are doing more than the MuL does. Sarna has never been, and pre-dates, the digital MuL. I think one of the important things about what we do here is that we provide more information than the MuL, in fact that is sort of the point. If you want Point Values, BV, and faction availability for a given era, the MuL is there foe that. If you want to know about why the thing was first built, and who built it, and why the left arm large laser is known for having "issues" on a certain production run, that is what we are for. [[User:CJKeys|CJ]] ([[User talk:CJKeys|talk]]) 17:09, 23 September 2022 (EDT)
−
*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? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 09:03, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
 
−
**Either way works for me. Personally I would be incleaned to leave it as is but just let me know how you think it would best work. I know the only time it really becomes an issue is when you have an omni and a standard 'Mech of the same name. Kinda liek the planet/MEch with the same name issue that first cropped up when I ported my stuff over from battletech wikia.--[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 22:25, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 
−
***Yeah, I can see your point. I would say leave regular BMs as their name, but omnis that have regular BM counterparts would have (Omni) after their name. (Also, we should add "Category:Omni" to them also.) --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 00:40, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
 
  
−
==BattleMech Portal==
+
===Standard, Omni, Industrial, Etc.===
−
*I would suggest making a Category or naming the mechs so they align by tonnage then alphabetically. comment by [[User:Veretax|Veretax]]
+
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
−
**I agree with you that the 'Mechs should be categorized by weight class (and also by factions). If there's a way to do it thru the general BattleMech category method, then I don't know it. However, it should definitely be possible to add specific categories for 'Mech weight class. For example, we can put a two category tags for Assassin that would look like this: <br><br>
 
−
<nowiki>[[Category:BattleMechs]]
 
−
[[Category:Medium BattleMechs]]</nowiki><br><br>
 
−
In fact, you've kinda given me an idea for a BattleMech 'portal' page, so that people can find their 'Mechs by the method they want. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 11:03, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
 
−
***The above was from a discussion Veretax started on the Custom template for 'Mechs, and it got me thinking. I could see us having a portals section on the main page for several categories (in fact, each could be added the Units section that is there now). When you click on BattleMech Portal, it takes you to a Main Page for BattleMechs. There are all sorts of links: general category, like we have now, weight class, faction lists, etc. We could include weapon types, etc. What do you think? If we wanted to do it, we should start once CJKeys finishes the 3025 'Mechs and fill those in accordingly. I can build the Portal Page. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] 11:03, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
 
−
****I think that it woudl be a wonderful Idea. I knwo I use the general Mech listing that I originally constructed to know what 'Mechs come next for entering but it woudl be cool to be able to look them up by weight class, albpabetically and maybeeven cost and BV.--[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 22:22, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 
−
*****I'm curious, cause I was looking for various ways to further select them. Your idea on cost and BV is interesting. How would you 'categorize' them that way? Maybe links to: weight, faction, cost, BV, etc. Then, when you click on that, it takes you to a sub-portal page, where you choose, say, your BV range: 1300-1400. All 'Mechs within that range would have a category tag that read "Category:BV13-14"  Tell ya what...while you finish up 3025, I'll start on a test portal and see what we can do with it. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 00:37, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
 
−
******Cool, I will probly be done with 3025 soon, been making drafts for all the heavies, have to type them and then post them.--[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 19:12, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
 
−
*******Heavies done,m starting on assaults, nine left. With any luck will be done before the end of the week on 3025.--[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 07:58, 1 November 2006 (CST)
 
−
********That's great, CJ. I'm hoping to get Nic's help on the portal site, but I started thinking: maybe we'll (you & I) want to star organizaing the 3025 'Mechs according to faction, BV, etc, so that follow on creators/editors understand the procedures for soing so. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 09:01, 1 November 2006 (CST)
 
  
−
==Reference Section Ordering==
+
I have done some research on the question of "Standard".  ''[[Total Warfare]]'' does not use this.  What it does use is not standardized, no pun intended.  "Non-OmniMechs" p. 269. "Armies of the thirty-first century field two classes of BattleMechs: those used primarily by the Inner Sphere, representing variations of and improvements on the original ’Mech technology, and the modular machines known as OmniMechs that gave the Clans their initial edge." pp. 20-21. "The word “’Mech” refers to BattleMechs/OmniMechs and IndustrialMechs (bipedal and four-legged). “’Mech” never refers to ProtoMechs." p. 20.  A brief search of recent fiction does not show "standard" used in this way.  It appears to be something born of the fandom, but for all that it seems to be widely adopted and well-understood, and there is no "official" term to replace it.  The above quotes do not portray "OmniMechs" as distinct from "BattleMechs", but rather as a variant, with the other variant not given a specific name.  So I do support using "Standard" as a way to distinguish from OmniMechs. They are both BattleMechs.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 19:16, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
−
*I really should have brought this up here first, since it is a team project, but I've started re-ordering the references, from the current state of chronological to alphabetical. My reasoning is that it is not clear to the casual (non-Project BattleMech member) Editor if the chronological is by book publishing or era and ordering by alphabetical seems natural to me. I hope that's not a problem with you, CJ, but if it is let me know and we'll discuss. I'm not asking you to go back to the established articles to do this, either, as I'm hitting them as I add in the TRO references from my current book project. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 12:24, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
+
 
−
**I noticed you were doing that and since have made changes to the way I order my references so that they match. Thanks for the heads up on that though. --[[User:CJKeys|CJKeys]] 21:44, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
+
===Faction Categories===
−
***Great and thanks. We work well together. Now, just to get some more people on baord! --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 23:01, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
+
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
 +
 
 +
===Tech Base Categories===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
 +
 
 +
This overlaps with the others, but it's as good a place to put it as any.
 +
 
 +
Copied from [[Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]]:<div style="background-color:#FFFFE0; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em">
 +
 
 +
I would look at the idea of switching out [[:Category:BattleMechs]] to a more universal [[:Category:Mechs]], with either three tech based subcategories (BM, Omni, IM) or six subcategories and further sort them into Clan or IS.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 13:10, 21 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
</div>
 +
 
 +
As I look more at the problem, I do find some other categories that seem worthy of inclusion, unless someone can suggest a different way to handle it:
 +
* [[:Category:Clan Standard BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Clan OmniMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Inner Sphere OmniMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Clan IndustrialMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Inner Sphere IndustrialMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Mixed-tech BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:QuadVees]]
 +
* [[:Category:Land-Air 'Mechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Primitive BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:'Mech classifications]] ''Perhaps reorganized.''
 +
* [[:Category:Individual 'Mechs]] This includes FrankenMechs.
 +
 
 +
Right up until you get to Mech Classifications and Indivdual, these are all about the Tech involved, some way in which the basic 'Mech is fundamentally not like other 'Mechs.  Some categories that would need to go somewhere if retained, but I am not as sure about where to put them:
 +
* [[:Category:Totem BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:C3 Equipped BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Melee BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Quad BattleMechs]]
 +
* [[:Category:Tripod]] (This says it is for Tripod combat or industrial chassis, but the only ones are combat, and I am sorely tempted to rename it.)
 +
* [[:Category:Unarmed BattleMechs]]
 +
Most could possibly fit in 'Mech classifications, perhaps, but I am lukewarm on the idea.
 +
 
 +
Thoughts on any of this welcomed.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 15:24, 23 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===The outMUL the MUL thread===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
 +
 
 +
Faction Production: the MUL does not seem to list by that, so we are doing something the MUL does not.  However, borders keep changing and factories change hands, and our system does nothing to address by time period or era. I am in favor of scrapping production categories as they are currently, but this is not a strong position.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
I have to disagree, when we designed the infobox, and included the manufacturers, it is because the wiki is more reflective of the Technical Readouts, which have traditionally listed manufacturer. We arent trying to emulate the mul, which we pre-date digitally, but are providing a resource more geared towards the current, and historical aspects of the mechs. [[User:CJKeys|CJ]] ([[User talk:CJKeys|talk]]) 14:25, 23 September 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Faction Availability: The MUL does this better than we do, and we should delete any categories that are purely "who has what available to them", and I believe that strongly.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
By tonnage/weight class: The MUL does this.  We do it automatically via the InfoBox, it seems. There is some duplication, but I feel that trying to remove it would not be worth the trouble, it works fine as it is.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
By Tech Base: Removing this from the Wiki would reduce the functionality of the Wiki, be a lot of work, and the tech base inclusion is much wanted.  Keep it, but be mindful that more Mixed-Tech stuff is coming.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===These categories just need to be deleted===
 +
Please state your positions and suggestions here.
 +
 
 +
[[:Category:Inner Sphere General BattleMechs]], [[:Category:Clan General BattleMechs]], [[:Category:Periphery General BattleMechs]], Category:Mercenary General BattleMechs, none of these are about production, they are availability listings without reference to era or other factors.  I want to drop delete on all of them.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 19:30, 22 June 2022 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Creator notations on Mechs ==
 +
 
 +
Good evening, It has come to my attention that one person decided that they needed to point out that Blaine was involved with the creation of several mechs in the aftermath of everything that happened last year. It left this alone for the time being as tensions were high, and I did not want to stir the pot further. I believe though that it is time to discuss this, as it seems like a knee-jerk reaction by one person. I don't think the information is relevant on the designs as a note of any kind, as the designs have always been, mostly, presented from an in universe perspective, and this information would be better suited as part of Blaine's profile on the wiki.[[User:CJKeys|CJ]] ([[User talk:CJKeys|talk]]) 20:39, 5 June 2023 (EDT)
 +
:I agree that the information would be better on his profile than the individual 'Mech pages. Notes about who designed what in a shared universe are more trivia than important information I feel.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 20:52, 5 June 2023 (EDT)
 +
::Disagree. I think it’s a bit of trivia that absolutely belongs with the respective 'Mechs. Btw, I know I did some entries of this kind, are you referring to those perchance? I made them long before Pardoe became a loaded issue; what prompted these entries I made was me going over old BT lore stuff that Pardoe put on his homepage. I thought it was an interesting piece of behind-the-curtain BT history. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:18, 6 June 2023 (EDT)
 +
::(Upon looking it up, okay, I see now that I actually made the edits only a few days before the CGL/Pardoe split. But I can tell you they had nothing to do with that. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:33, 6 June 2023 (EDT))

Latest revision as of 11:16, 25 October 2023

Archive
Archive1
Archive2
Archive3

Archive, and move current discussions here. (DONE)[edit]

I move that the contents of this page be moved to an Archive page, so we can bring the discussion at Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs over here where it belongs, as it has expanded well beyond the question of "Deleting a category" and moved on to "How shall we organize Mech categories, and which ones should just go?"--Talvin (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2022 (EDT)

I decided to Be Bold, as some of this went back to 2010.--Talvin (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

Categories[edit]

Over at Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs I decided to revive the debate on whether to delete the category or remove the deletion tag. Responses were swift and vigorous, showing that over three years later we do not have consensus on this. Other topics relating to Mech Categories also were brought up.

I am doing my best to lay out the positions and arguments I have seen raised in public and in private or in a couple cases in my head. If I forgot yours or misrepresent yours, please assume good faith and just politely correct in a comment. Also note that these are not necessarily my views, some of them will contradict each other.

  • We have too many categories for Mechs, especially with our limited volunteer availability.
  • Faction Categories are generally supposed to be for who produces what.
  • We have Faction Categories that are about availability, like Category:Mercenary General BattleMechs (no longer used)
  • Omni/Standard/Industrial categories for both Clan and IS tech base are useful.
  • Category trees should not overlap without a very good reason.
  • Meta-categories should contain only other categories, not individual articles. Example: if we are going to have Category:Standard BattleMechs and Category:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs underneath it, the Akuma should be categorized to Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs, and not in both.
  • BattleMech refers to all dedicated combat Mech chassis, be they "Standard" BattleMechs, OmniMechs, LAMs, QuadVees, or something we haven't seen yet. So we need Standard BattleMech to distinguish from those others.
  • Standard BattleMech is redundant. BattleMechs are not OmniMechs are not QuadVees are not LAMs. (Query, does "Standard" get used in this way in any official source, or is it a fandom/Sarna thing?)
  • As the storyline has advanced, the distinction between "Clan" and "Inner Sphere" is blurring, with more and more units that draw from both. We need to decide how to handle that moving forward.
  • Categorizing Mechs by Tech Base is trying to outMUL the MUL.
  • Categorizing Mechs by Faction Production is trying to outMUL the MUL.
  • Categorizing Mechs by Faction Availability is trying to outMUL the MUL.
  • Categorizing Mechs by Tonnage is trying to outMUL the MUL.

There is one item I think we have some kind of consensus on:

  • We really need to have a constructive conversation, or perhaps several in parallel, about Mech Categories. It's a mess.

I will come back with my own thoughts in separate comments. I am organizing this as best I can, if you feel it can be done better let's have a constructive talk about that.--Talvin (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

I have noticed several times that you have mentioned that we are doing more than the MuL does. Sarna has never been, and pre-dates, the digital MuL. I think one of the important things about what we do here is that we provide more information than the MuL, in fact that is sort of the point. If you want Point Values, BV, and faction availability for a given era, the MuL is there foe that. If you want to know about why the thing was first built, and who built it, and why the left arm large laser is known for having "issues" on a certain production run, that is what we are for. CJ (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2022 (EDT)

Standard, Omni, Industrial, Etc.[edit]

Please state your positions and suggestions here.

I have done some research on the question of "Standard". Total Warfare does not use this. What it does use is not standardized, no pun intended. "Non-OmniMechs" p. 269. "Armies of the thirty-first century field two classes of BattleMechs: those used primarily by the Inner Sphere, representing variations of and improvements on the original ’Mech technology, and the modular machines known as OmniMechs that gave the Clans their initial edge." pp. 20-21. "The word “’Mech” refers to BattleMechs/OmniMechs and IndustrialMechs (bipedal and four-legged). “’Mech” never refers to ProtoMechs." p. 20. A brief search of recent fiction does not show "standard" used in this way. It appears to be something born of the fandom, but for all that it seems to be widely adopted and well-understood, and there is no "official" term to replace it. The above quotes do not portray "OmniMechs" as distinct from "BattleMechs", but rather as a variant, with the other variant not given a specific name. So I do support using "Standard" as a way to distinguish from OmniMechs. They are both BattleMechs.--Talvin (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

Faction Categories[edit]

Please state your positions and suggestions here.

Tech Base Categories[edit]

Please state your positions and suggestions here.

This overlaps with the others, but it's as good a place to put it as any.

Copied from Category talk:Inner Sphere Standard BattleMechs:

I would look at the idea of switching out Category:BattleMechs to a more universal Category:Mechs, with either three tech based subcategories (BM, Omni, IM) or six subcategories and further sort them into Clan or IS.--Dmon (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2022 (EDT)

As I look more at the problem, I do find some other categories that seem worthy of inclusion, unless someone can suggest a different way to handle it:

Right up until you get to Mech Classifications and Indivdual, these are all about the Tech involved, some way in which the basic 'Mech is fundamentally not like other 'Mechs. Some categories that would need to go somewhere if retained, but I am not as sure about where to put them:

Most could possibly fit in 'Mech classifications, perhaps, but I am lukewarm on the idea.

Thoughts on any of this welcomed.--Talvin (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2022 (EDT)

The outMUL the MUL thread[edit]

Please state your positions and suggestions here.

Faction Production: the MUL does not seem to list by that, so we are doing something the MUL does not. However, borders keep changing and factories change hands, and our system does nothing to address by time period or era. I am in favor of scrapping production categories as they are currently, but this is not a strong position.--Talvin (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

I have to disagree, when we designed the infobox, and included the manufacturers, it is because the wiki is more reflective of the Technical Readouts, which have traditionally listed manufacturer. We arent trying to emulate the mul, which we pre-date digitally, but are providing a resource more geared towards the current, and historical aspects of the mechs. CJ (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2022 (EDT)


Faction Availability: The MUL does this better than we do, and we should delete any categories that are purely "who has what available to them", and I believe that strongly.--Talvin (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)


By tonnage/weight class: The MUL does this. We do it automatically via the InfoBox, it seems. There is some duplication, but I feel that trying to remove it would not be worth the trouble, it works fine as it is.--Talvin (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)


By Tech Base: Removing this from the Wiki would reduce the functionality of the Wiki, be a lot of work, and the tech base inclusion is much wanted. Keep it, but be mindful that more Mixed-Tech stuff is coming.--Talvin (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

These categories just need to be deleted[edit]

Please state your positions and suggestions here.

Category:Inner Sphere General BattleMechs, Category:Clan General BattleMechs, Category:Periphery General BattleMechs, Category:Mercenary General BattleMechs, none of these are about production, they are availability listings without reference to era or other factors. I want to drop delete on all of them.--Talvin (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

Creator notations on Mechs[edit]

Good evening, It has come to my attention that one person decided that they needed to point out that Blaine was involved with the creation of several mechs in the aftermath of everything that happened last year. It left this alone for the time being as tensions were high, and I did not want to stir the pot further. I believe though that it is time to discuss this, as it seems like a knee-jerk reaction by one person. I don't think the information is relevant on the designs as a note of any kind, as the designs have always been, mostly, presented from an in universe perspective, and this information would be better suited as part of Blaine's profile on the wiki.CJ (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2023 (EDT)

I agree that the information would be better on his profile than the individual 'Mech pages. Notes about who designed what in a shared universe are more trivia than important information I feel.--Dmon (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2023 (EDT)
Disagree. I think it’s a bit of trivia that absolutely belongs with the respective 'Mechs. Btw, I know I did some entries of this kind, are you referring to those perchance? I made them long before Pardoe became a loaded issue; what prompted these entries I made was me going over old BT lore stuff that Pardoe put on his homepage. I thought it was an interesting piece of behind-the-curtain BT history. Frabby (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2023 (EDT)
(Upon looking it up, okay, I see now that I actually made the edits only a few days before the CGL/Pardoe split. But I can tell you they had nothing to do with that. Frabby (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2023 (EDT))

Retrieved from "https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs&oldid=1010952"