Editing BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs

[[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)

==Categories==
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.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:CJKeys|CJ]] ([[User talk:CJKeys|talk]]) 17:09, 23 September 2022 (EDT)

===Standard, Omni, Industrial, Etc.===
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.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 19:16, 22 June 2022 (EDT)

===Faction Categories===
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)