Talk:BattleTech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] History

This is a notification that I have started a discussion on the fate of "History of the BattleTech universe" on its talk page. Scaletail 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New name

Everyone that owns any of the books dating back to the time of Fasa it says battletech on them but since Wizkids has taken over all new copis ar enamed as mechwarrior, so going back to y comment in the updates section were I mentioned that Dark age and classic shoud be placed together is correct. An so that there is no confusion I am not talking o the clix or the classic battletech game. these are spinoffs, but not the Mechwarrior/Classic Battletech, and the darkage are the books relating to the universe itself. It i the Battletch Universe but the series as a whole has a new name this would mean that we would have to annouce in the intro that Battletech i the univers itself and that Classic Battletech has been renamed and Dark age the Books are the series is the true nake of odf the series noe. Sorry rambling here can't help sometimes. But we should ponder on this becuase this make the battlteh page less persice.This also leads me to belive just I tried to say in the update area that the battletech page should have mechwarrior and ark age together, right now we treat the dark age materieal noticable to the readers that don't relize that most of the info the are reading is not update. Besides we a massive updating to here we have good amount of info on any of this after the events o fthe clan invasion I see this as sad since how can someone just coming to the series get a undersanding of wealth of history in wich they would inheriting. Pleas elet me know If I rambled to much is so short paragraphs ok. thanks. [popa01|popa01] 8:13, 23 March 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popa01 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I completely disagree. BattleTech was the original name for the universe, and there are still products being published under the domain of BattleTech as Classic BattleTech. When Wizkids bought the rights to BattleTech, they released a new game entitled MechWarrior, so any information relating to that new game should be included in that section. I know there are many people who feel a lot more strongly than I do about MechWarrior: DA/AoD, so I have my doubts about whether or not this will even be given any serious consideration. Scaletail 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Classic Battletech is ran by Fanpro, the battletech series is controlled by wizkeds, so by the grace of faza battletech as the name of the series is actually wrong now, but its still the battletech universe, two difference things. Besides the clix is a game not the books, again must I repeat the universe is the books not the games ok. unlike faza that had the timeline fiquered out they use the clix to effect the series as a whole. I not contesting that the clix is a spinoff but DA is the Battletech universe they arnt two seperat universes with the same people ok. By saying that DA is a spinoff than classic battletech is too. Fanpro did this so that people would relize that they are focusing on the original line and is progressing to link the the series together using the classic battletech sourcebooks. But this Scaletail are you wrong battletech is not the battletech anymore, it has been renamed see. Classic Battletech is soly on the shoulders of fanpro. And you proved yourself wrong since wizkids bought battletech they can do what they want do, if they want to rename by god they can. nothing we say can do that. But even wizkids still calls it the battletech universe, but the name of the series is Mechwarrior go out and oreder one of the old books of the original line and on it says Mechwarrior not Battletech. So tochauch I prononce that this can not be debated by mere feeling since the purpose of wikipedia is to give fatual info, not opions to keep the battletech pge as a whole like this is proving that the folks like me and most folks that read this arnt not gitting no satifaction in that readers will have the current information todate. We may contunie debating but since I have facts to sit unpon I feel what I suggets as fair.Popa01 03:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
First off, my apologies because I was treating this as if it was an actual merge request, which it is not. I'm not debating ownership of the intellectual property. Obviously, WizKids owns BattleTech and MechWarrior and can do what they want with them. Nonetheless, BattleTech still exists and is supported by FanPro, and it therefore deserves to have its own Wikipedia entry. I'm not entirely sure the grounds on which you want to merge the two articles together, but there are two separate and distinct war-games that are both actively supported by two different companies that just happen to share the same storyline. They are currently advancing that storyline in different time periods, so the two articles dedicated to the games would necessarily reflect that reality.
Now, many of the articles that cover that storyline need work, but as for your assertion that they are segregated, I would direct your attention to the articles on Terra and the Federated Suns. They both deal with events from the original BattleTech storyline, the newer Classic BattleTech storyline, as well as the Dark Age novels. I think you are confusing "BattleTech" with "Storyline of the BattleTech universe," which does need a lot of work if it is to be kept as a viable article. Scaletail 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"BattleTech" is the name of the franchise, universe, setting, etc. The "Classic" in front of "Classic BattleTech" is there to distinguish it from other "BattleTech" products, in the same way that "Dark Age" comes at the end of "MechWarrior: Dark Age." So... what exactly do you think should be renamed? Skiltao 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I was wanting the battletech page to anknowledge that with the purhase of the battletech franchize by wizkids, that all series books is now the mechwarrioir series and that the Bark Age series is not a spin off, this meaning that we would givePopa01 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC) little in the aspect of whats happen in the DA. All games are still Bttletech.Popa01 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to say that "from February 31st onward, the novel line is published under the Mechwarrior Dark Age or Age of Destruction name" (or something that sounds better...), I have no problem with that.Skiltao 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Well ok but I would need to mention tat the original series has changed name to mechwarrioir I'll tyr to wirte something —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popa01 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
But the original novel line HASN'T changed it's name to MechWarrior. Do you remember when the Jade Phoenix trilogy was reprinted? It didn't say "MechWarrior" on the side. Skiltao 19:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updates needed

Hey we need to update the battletech page to include the added info by the mechwarrior series and the info of the Jihad by Fanpro Popa01 13:27 27 February

The MechWarrior "clicktech" game is mentioned under "spinoffs," the Republic of the Sphere is mentioned as a major political entity. It seems as though more specific information would belong on the linked pages instead of this main page. Skiltao 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but the fact is that the Battletech Page is out of date allmost since were maily only puting info dating back to the 3058. we due have partial info about the recent events but not enough.
A need to be able put in current info but still have have the current stuff also —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popa01 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Be bold and do it. Scaletail 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

Ok just cleaned up most of the page whats left is the trivia, other links and External links These need a little help especially the Trivia so i'm going to remove the unencyclopedic statement. Popa01 16:24 25 December

[edit] Cooperation with BattleTechWiki

BattleTechWiki with 3k articles is quite impressive. I think we should consider closer cooperation, especially as it is also using GFDL and so we are intercompatibile. For starters I'd suggest we create [[Category:External link templates|an external link template] that we could use to mark articles having copies on BattleTechWiki (and I'd hope BTW editors would create a similar one at their place). Feel free to start work on the template at Template:BattleTechWiki.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering when there'd be a BTwiki. All the other good sci-fi universes had one. But I don't understand what you mean by an external link template. What does that do? Sorry, I'm still somewhat of a noob at wikipedia. Also, is there any reason why we can't just cpoy and paste info from WP to the BTwiki? If so, I dont think it would usually be ok the other way around as the BTwiki, while lacking in some areas, other areas have way too much info for WP. It would be fancruft for sure. But I'm on board to help out. AidanPryde 07:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Elink template basically is added to elink section and it automatically generates text along the line: 'this topic is also discussed in BTwiki at this link]' - so we could easily keep the related articles synchronized. And certainly fancruft is offlimits here - but there are many subject that can be discussed well here; for example I see no reasen we should not have good articles on Clan Wolf or Atlas (Battlemech). BTwiki would have (and already has) additional info - for example, Atlas prinatble sheets and players comments about the mech feasibility in game.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Nic from Sarna.net/BTWiki here. One of the main reasons I started BTWiki was to get a wiki where all of the content would be geared towards the BT universe, as Wikipedia won't allow a lot of what you are calling fancruft over here. Which is great -- both Wikipedia and BTWiki have their purposes. Wikipedia would be a great avenue to 'prune down' a lot of the content from BTWiki that would be 'rock solid' for Wikipedia, while we can use BTWiki to expand on a lot of the universe (fancruft) that shouldn't go here. Nicjansma 03:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly agree that's a valid solution, and elink templates would help us coordinate that 'rock solid' content. PS. Do consider registering :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm an editor/admin at BTW and I'm for marking those articles as having counterparts at Wiki. I'll standby and wait for the Wiki version of the template, and I'll then adapt it for use at BTW. It appears I have the support of my boss, Nic, in this. --Revanche 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This raises a whole lot of WP:V and licensing issues that need answered before I can give this idea anything but a pass. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 17:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am one of the frequent contributors to the Batletech Wiki. As far as the neutrality o the articles and the issue of WP:V the articles are all written from sources that exist in the context of the game itself or the game universe. As the Battletech gaming universe has about twenty five plus years of development and history it has its own rich history that has a large library of sources that can verify the in universe facts about the game as well as a large number of sources that can verify the non fictional information in the game including information concerning the game rules and the history of the game itself. These paterials are available to anyone who has the actual hardcopy books or in some cases, when they have been converted by the publisher, the PDF files as well as the oficially released files for the BattleMech editor program called Heavy Metal Pro. This information has been released by Fanpro, Wizkids, and the defunct FASA Corporation. I hope that the inclusion or the cross refferencing to the BattleTechwiki information will be seriously considered as while it is a niche wiki it is a very rich and detailed gaming universe. I apologize for any typos or errors I have made and I hope that you dont think that I am trying to rant, that is not my intention, but I have a tendancy to get on a roll when I am passionate about something. Thanks --CJKeys 21:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have created the template: {{BattleTechWiki}}. If an article on BTWiki has the same name as on Wikipedia, slapping {{BattleTechWiki}} on a Wikipedia article and it will be linked to BTWiki; this template should be used in the External Links section (and is not a reference). If you like it, I'd expect BTWiki can copy it (hopefuly the syntax will need no change), so the linkage is both sided.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've created a template on BattleTechWiki to link back to here. I'm looking forward to our cooperation! Nicjansma 03:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to use the BTWiki template, but found that it has issues linking to pages with a space in the name. I'm no good at the template thing, but I know BTW had the same problem and fixed (ergo I know it's doable). Help? Scaletail 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, someone has also started up a BattleTech Wikia. --Groggy Dice T|C 04:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the template. The syntax is now: {{BattleTechWiki|name=word1_word2_etc.}}. Example: see Armed Forces of the Federated Suns.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Periphery

I did lot of fixing but most of the info needs being rid of since it could go in the pages of each nation—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popa01 (talk • contribs) .

"Larger, more influential nations lie in the Deep Periphery." Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Hanseatic League and Nueva Castile are larger and more influential than the Outworlds Alliance, Taurian Concordat, or Magistracy of Canopus? Please. Can we agree that we need to find a better way to introduce the nations of the Deep, then actually introduce them? Scaletail 17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

well i checked that thats worng i just took some else work and spaced it out i didnt check it sorry, it dont doesnt sound right i need to fix ok i get that done

[edit] Cleaning the Page

Note just puting everything in a paragraph does not help, dont be doing that it realing is not helping out just making more work—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popa01 (talk • contribs) .

Hey we should put some energyinto the battletech wiki thing and place info that is unwanted on the battletech page there for the time being like the trivia and just have the link go there

I've tacked on a paragraph about the game itself, because 'boardgame/war game' was a little vague. Makes BT sound like Monopoly with particle weapons. I also thought a mention should be made of the 'mech building system, which makes the game for me - I'm still bemoaning the fact I missed the opportunity to play a crit-monster I designed off the chassy of a Stalker. Everyone I know loves tinkering with designs, so that should be in here. --Sword of Light 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Political Factions of BattleTech

The other major faction groupings are "Successor States," "Clans," and "Periphery." Why break up "Terran Nations" into 3 sub-headings? Each of the Terran factions are so *very* closely related that you can't explain one without mentioning the others; and they have contiguous control of Terra and surrounding space. I'm changing it back for now just to match the format of the rest of the page... would it better to group the factions (all of them) differently? Skiltao 19:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While every state within BT can be broken up into smaller & smaller factions, there are clearly three overall regions: the Inner Sphere, the Periphery and Clan Homeworlds (or Clan Space). There's no need to break out the factions (of any era) here on the main page for BattleTech. --LeyteWolfer 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it would look best just to have a paragraph for each general group (Successor States, Terra, Periphery, Clans, Mercs) and then make a page for each group that actually lists/introduces the factions. Thoughts?Skiltao 09:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

its non conforming this does not help the page it actualy makes it worse due to it jumps from to another and they arnt terran nations since only tswo if the empires names mentioned terra the Terran alliance, and the terran hegemony but i borke it up so that there would be no confusion for the reader

I couldn't disagree more. Nevermind. I like the way you did the Great Houses, and fixed "Terran Nations" the same way. I'm not sure how to divvy up the Clans though... maybe Invading Clans, Homeworld Clans, and Dead Clans? Skiltao 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well i was thinking of that and doing the clans based on the wardern clans andwaring ons
"warden" and "crusader" doesn't give the reader any idea of the clan's physical location, political importance, or historical importance. I don't really want to leave the Clans all listed individually like that... most of them aren't important enough. The Invading Clans deserve their own grouping because together they match a Successor State in power, and because they have a shared history - likewise, the Homeworld Clans are also a very distinct group of them. Skiltao 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


dude you just messed up alot of work there and rmoved info were it was better at

The information at the beginning which said "Inner Sphere is everything within 500ly of Terra" etc, I didn't delete - I just divided it between the relevant paragraphs. It makes more sense, and helps the page look less fragmented. Skiltao 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Popa, This section is describing the Political Entities, and doesn't discuss boundaries or cartography at all... WHY do you think that "Political Boundaries" is a better section title than "Political Entities?" If you don't answer in a couple days, I'll go ahead and revert it. Skiltao 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. "Political Boundaries" just sounds... odd. Scaletail 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Star League is special, being a League of 10 or so allied nations - it is worth mentioning that Terra was its capitol; this also lets the reader know that Terra is important. No other nation or successor state has its capitol mentioned on this page, and I think it should stay that way.Skiltao 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercenaries

I vote we list a maximum of 6 Merc units, using the following criteria: it must be at least a regiment in size; it must have had a direct hand in House politics; and it must be super-prestigious.Skiltao 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why limit it to six? That seems artificial. I do agree that the ultra-famous ones are the only ones that deserve mention on the main page, though. I'm not so sure that the MAC should be mentioned, though, since they turned their back on the mercenary profession. I would think that the 21st Centauri Lancers, Wolf's Dragoons, Gray Death Legion, Kell Hounds, and maybe Hansen's Roughriders (although that's pushing it) should be the only mercs listed. Scaletail 01:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

6 or less - there just isn't any good reason to have a long list of examples.Skiltao 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not forget Waco Rangers for they were mad ein part due to th dragoons and that they are the leading party that nearly destroys the wolf dragoons

If we listed every merc unit that feuded with the Dragoons, we would have to throw in at least Wannamaker's Widowmakers and the Black Thorns. If we listed every merc unit that participated in the Battle of Outreach, we'd need a separate page. I was remiss, however, in neglecting to mention the Northwind Highlanders. Apparently the Eridani Light Horse go back to being mercs in DA, so them, too. Scaletail 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes sthat true but the waco rangers had been a small but a keen part of the story line for he wacos did lead in changes in the history of the innersphere, in since they were the yang of the yin of the dragoons. This is proven by the fact that waco rangers chased dragoon forces were ever they were believed to be such actions brought many things to happen. And also if you read some of the books the wacos were the main driving force of the battle of outreach. Yeah the Blakist paid and controled the rogue mercs but no to include them is wrong since it would be leaving a major factor of what happens in the Battletech universe.
(When writing on this page, please put 4 tildas after your comments.) If the Waco Rangers are notably only for their feud with the Dragoons, then they are not important enough to mention here (there are many "yangs" to the Dragoons "yin"). They would fit better on a mercs-only wikipedia page.Skiltao 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well yeah they made many enemies but the Wacos were a mainstay off all of them, Besides wich i have mentioned is that some events could have happen

I'd say no Wacko's Rangers and no Roughriders...but ELH is definitely in, along with Grey Death, Wolf's Dragoons, 21st Centauri (although they're debatable, I think) and the Kell Hounds.M.U.D. 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Kell Hounds, Wolf's Dragoons, Northwind Highlanders, Eridani Lighthorse, and Gray Death Legion. Those are the major ones. I'm not really familiar with the 21st Centauri - were they in pre-Clan invasion books?--CBrewster 14:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Is this section even neccessary? So much stuff in BattleTech is pop culture references, inside jokes, and contest winners that attempting to list it all would be insane. It seems like the sort of thing that should be on MechWiki. Scaletail 01:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be cut down, definitely. Notable real-world people (and their fictional counterparts) probably shouldn't be on this page; much of the other trivia seems like it could be split between the faction-specific pages. Some stuff, like the note about Macross, should probably stay. Skiltao 08:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the Macross information needs to be included on the main page, although treatment of it needs to be careful since neither party has officially said anything about the settlement (and probably never will). I'm still not convinces that trivia and "in-jokes" belong in an encyclopedia, however. Perhaps just a section about Macross, with a note that the trivia section can be found on MechWiki? Scaletail 03:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
How about every thing starting from the mentioning of Aleksandr and Down should be moved to antoher page like the Tech and Protagionist and artist hmm, i will be working on it.

[edit] Clans

"two have fragmented, two have defected". I assume that Clan Wolf is one part of both of those, while Clan Nova Cat is the second defector. Overlooking the oversimplification of Clan Wolf defecting in the interest of space and brevity, which other clan fragmented?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scaletail (talk • contribs).

The Fire Mandrills, with their Kindraa system.Skiltao 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unseen

Shouldn't the unseen be both mentioned and pictured here. I'm thinking the Warhammer on the old box covers, or the Marauder on the cover of 3025? Any other votes?M.U.D. 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

- Um, no; that's what makes them unseen - mention the lists (1st and 2nd), and explain why they are the Unseen (FASA got rights to make model kits, but published illustrations either by ignorance of the limits of their rights, or willful disregard of those limits, and Harmony Gold - who DID secure the rights for illustrations & animation, etc - called them on it. After some sabre rattling, both parties went into a conference room, inked a settlement, FASA yanked the images from that point on and neither entity said anything more.) But even if you can find some Fair Use images (good luck) it somewhat seems to fly in the face of the agreement of the involved parties. Technically there's no axe that HG has to grind with Wiki...yet. Details and lists, yes. Images, no. Empath 01:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lostech page?

Is there one anywhereM.U.D. 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "lostech page?"Skiltao 07:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Page about lostech, I imagine. Obviously we don't have one. Try creating one on BTwiki.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to wait on the outcome of the Jumpship delete debate before floating a lostech page...BtechWiki might be the place to start with that though...but first I need to finish working on the Inner Sphere pageM.U.D. 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think lostech is as notable. I'd suggest adding it to some BTech glossary terms page, and creating a redirect.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpship (Battletech)

Editors may be interesting in that vote.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Game drew inspiration from Star Wars?

Er, is there anything to back that up? The original version of battletech "drew inspiration" principally from the cartoon RoboTech, or at least its mecha and miniatures (some details here: http://brianscache.com/unseen/).Skiltao 06:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question, I'd also always heard that RoboTech, Macross, etc. were the main inspiration. I'm not sure who originally put that tidbit in, but I preserved it when I revamped the front page in hopes that someone might add a reference. The Star Wars link is credible, I'd say, given its popularity leading up to BTech's release (and its prominent use of battle mecha), but if it can't be positively cited it should be dropped. (Or else mentioned merely for pop culture context.)
Just a thought -- since Star Wars popularized the use of the term "droid", and since the first edition used the term Droid instead of 'Mech, this may point to a connection. Still needs a cite though.
Huwmanbeing 20:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, rereading your edit, you seem to have added that connection accidentally on your own. ;)Skiltao 07:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy crap this place is a mess

In other words the Battletech articles need a Wikiproject and bad. Really bad. I was just glancing through one of the main articles History of the BattleTech universe and it's in need of a painful amount of copyediting and reworking. Once I started looking around further I found atrocious writting, jacked up formatting, typos, misspellings, broken links, empty links, walled gardens, redundant material, and no standards of conformity in most of the rest of the Battletech articles as well. All of that doesn't even mention the policy violations all over the place. I wouldn't bat an eye if 75% of the articles out there right now were merged to a few main articles or just deleted outright.

I love Battletech and it deserves better. One of the articles (in a very OR statement) said that BT has a universe that is in the same realm of detail as Star Wars and Star Trek. I'll go further: BT has a more indepth and fleshed out universe than any other Sci-Fi or Fantasy realm out there to include Star Wars, Star Trek, Dungeons & Dragons or Lord of the Rings. That's no joke. There has to be a huge and collaborative effort to fix wikipedia's coverage of this material.

I will get a WikiProject up and running, I will build it and make it work. I'm not going to claim to be an "expert" wikipedia editor but I'm already a member or participant of a few WikiProjects and was one of the founding members of another. I don't want to belittle the work that's been done already but there is vast room for improvment. What I need from you guys is a "here, here" of commited editors that are willing to sign up for a the BattleTech WikiProject that will actually put in the work that is needed. I can't do this alone and I need the Battletech fans (or just interested editors period) to help me out. I'll act as the Lead Coordinator (if there are no objections) but I need help. If anyone is interested place your name below and a brief comment on what you can best help out with. If anyone has questions don't be afraid to bring them up here or on my talkpage. Thanks alot guys. NeoFreak 05:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most BattleTech-related articles are desperately in need of clean-up, and many need to be entirely rewritten. I wrote/redrafted several of the opening sections on the main page a few weeks ago to give it a more encyclopedic feel, but much more is needed. I'd be glad to support the project.
Putting together a quick survey of current BattleTech articles might be a good early step, just so everyone can see what we have and what's missing (and to get consensus on mergers/separations/deletions/etc.). There appear to be at least stubs for most significant BT items, though several major products (CityTech) lack entries, as do some other important things like the animated series.
Also, I think the 75% figure is a bit high. If we're to take the editorial work being done in the Star Trek or Star Wars projects as a guideline, then distinct articles for many BT subjects (say, individual clans or worlds) are justified, though of course the vast majority are currently just stubs. That said, I'm sure there's plenty of scope for merging or doing away with some of the more arcane stuff.
Huwmanbeing 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm in, I agree 75% may be a bit high. I do think that the Dune universe is at least as detailed as BT, if not more. But thats an argument for another time. My BT knowledge isn't super great but I'm an english major, so I should be able to help out with the writing.AidanPryde 20:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
English major? Oh you messed up, now I'm no going to leave you alone until you agree to be a copyeditor. :) That and technical stuff is going to be the bulk of our initial workload. NeoFreak 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree and it sounds good. It's so bad, that I've moved most of my projects to BattleTechWiki, which I believe is a more suitable place for the vast majority of stuff that is here, anyway. Scaletail 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Scaletail. BattleTechWiki is more appropriate (for me) as a resource for the BT fan. Wikipedia is a great source for basic encyclopedia knowledge for those learning the community. I'm not opposed to developing a wikiproject here, but I'm not partial to putting the effort into it that I have at BTW. --Revanche 00:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. A dedicated wiki is the best place for more obscure and technical topics aimed at fans. This can be a great place for a broad coverage of the BT universe and game with links to the dedicated wiki. I'm going to give it a few more days to see who else signs up. Spread the word around and I'll start on some WP stuff so our construction time is eased. NeoFreak 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Members

  • NeoFreak: Willing to start the WikiProject and act as Lead Coordinator.
  • Huwmanbeing: I can write pretty clearly, and I'd be happy to take on any drafting or editing tasks.
  •  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Although I prefer to write articles about 'real things', I am happy to help with more technical issues (making templates, etc.)
  • Scaletail: On board.
  • Skiltao: Here here. I'm fairly familiar with BattleTech and can write clearly, but know next to nothing about Wikipedia policy or technical issues.
  • AidanPryde (English major) Come on, just look at my user name, I can't refuse.
  • Topkai22: I'll help where I can. I'm a decent writer and my knowledge of BT is pretty solid.
  • Popa01: Ay I have been working hard to update and love to immeres myself within the BT univeres I say Yes
  • M.U.D. 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC): count me in. I've already seen one btech article successfully through a deletion proposal, and can write fairly well too. Also have a pretty extensive collection of source material
  • CBrewster 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC): I'll help where I can. I have a fair bit of BT knowledge, but it's scattered all through the timeline.

[edit] It's up!

The wikiproject has been created. One of the most important things we have to do is recruit! Alot of work needs to be done with templates and simple grunt work of tagging all the articles in the scpoe of the project. Check it out! NeoFreak 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish you all luck in the endevor before you. Battletech was one of my first games and FASA the first company I had any real loyalty to. However ..."I'm fairly familiar with BattleTech and can write clearly, but know next to nothing about Wikipedia policy or technical issues"... I'm not pointing that out to pick on anyone (in fact I respect the honesty of it!!!) but it illustrates a key point. Those without a background in wikipedia policy or encyclopedieas in general need to get up to speed before they start writing here. If you all want to be succesful remember... you're writing for an encyclopedia NOT a fan page. I've seen way to many attempts at doing wikiprojects fail because the same people with the passion to do it become the same ones that can't leave personal opinion and objectivity at the door because of that passion. When something can be said in plain words not genre terms, do it. You're writing this for everyone here not just for fans. When something can be said in 10 words paraphrased not 100 words quoted, do it. In the grand scheme it's just a game and a fictional univere, don't take it too seriously (and for the love of god don't write from an in-universe perspective!!!). I'm sure if you all are really serious about this you've all taken alot of this into consideration, but consider it my words of wisdom to you on making this a great section of wikipedia articles (especially given how much work they need) in the task ahead of you. And no, I have -NO- desire to help personally. Just a desire to see you all take your good intentions and succeed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the concern. I'm quite the policy nazi and one of the bigest reasons why I proposed the project was to decrease individual articles and policy violations, not increase the scope of coverage with fluff. NeoFreak 12:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

The page cannot have two logo-- it makes it look cluttered. Unless somebody can come up with a suitable solution to including the old 20th anniversary logo, I say it goes because there is something newer. Some people may think the old logo looks better, but the new logo is in (for the time being, anyways). --Scaletail 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if there was a suitable solution, there's also the problem that the 20th anniversary is over, making the logo twice-outdated. ATimson 07:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It has historical value, it's nice, and shows a battlemech in the lead. I say keep.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that only the current logo should be at the head. However, instead of deleting the 20th anniversary logo, I'd suggest moving it down into the overview section, which talks about the history of the game. (Given that the old logo was in use for so long, having it present somewhere in the article is suitable and adds value.) Huwmanbeing 14:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, but there are already a lot of images, including one in the "Overview" section. Should we get rid of something, or just add it into the section? --Scaletail 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I finally attempted to move the 20th anniversary logo, but it's apparently not transparent (meaning that it covers up text when I try to move it anywhere). Is this fixable, or should it just go? --Scaletail 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's three years out of date, and not getting any younger. It should just go. ATimson 01:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.jpg

Image:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg

Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MechWarrior split and renaming proposal

Please see Talk:MechWarrior#RPG.2C_split_and_renaming_proposal and comment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needed: list of gaming books

I was suprised looking at Category:BattleTech publications that we have no list of BattleTech tabletop nor MechWarrior RPG books, only novels...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of work has been done on the CBT books over at BattleTechWiki. I'm trying to add a book a day until I do all the ones I have. If you like what you see, go ahead and import the info over here. Scaletail 17:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikiproject Computing???

Why was that there??? I took the liberty of deleting it. If there's some good reason why that was there, please enlighten me, 'cause I'm baffled by that one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.U.D. (talk • contribs).

Because BattleTech has inspired many computer games like MechWarrior 4. Scaletail 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
So? The Wikiproject states that its scope is "all Wikipedia's articles on areas or subjects relating to computing technology". Which is what what I'd expect from the name. What does that have to do with a series of video games, no matter how popular (which have their own Wikiproject)? I could see BattleTech Centers as being in scope, but not this general article. --Rindis 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The correct WikiProjects for this article, in addition to the BattleTech itself, are Wikipedia:WikiProject Games and Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Just because there was a battletech video game doesn't mean that computing is central concern for battletech. The connection is tangential at best. Please find a more sensible wikiProject to attach to this, preferably the battletech wikiproject.M.U.D. 20:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of BT articles

Hi, sorry for my poor english. The user Judgesurreal777 has proposed several BT articles to be deleted. I think that some of them are really relevant. I only inform you in case it hasn't been realized (and I haven't time off by now to improve them by myself). Greetings. --Bedwyr (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you link them here, so we can consider whether to endorse deletion, oppose it or consider merging?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate to me on the respective deletion nomination pages that the articles in question are notable, like if you can find stuff on how each respective battletech clan was created in real life by the designers or creators, or now popular the battletech stuff is in real life, then I'll withdraw it. Otherwise, it may be advisable to either merge stuff together and source it, or transwiki it before deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree some entries should be merged. Please list prodded of AfD articles here so we can discuss it and hopefully do a batch of merges; I am not looking forward to going through all BTech articles to see which ones were selected for AfD.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to make a draft of the current BattleTech articles, so we can see what should be done. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the master list, I'm still working on it, but all the article should be there....feel free to put it somewhere besides here for convenience.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, based on looking at the whole topic, there needs to be some serious consolidation...we should create one factions article, one nations article, one clans article, one locations article, one planets article, on organizations article, and one technology article. That would cut down the topic by 46 articles, which makes sense, after all why does this topic need over 5 DOZEN articles on their fictional world and there is barely any notability among any of them? This is the only path besides mass deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the spirit but wouldn't go that far. For example, major factions (ex. Clan Wolf or Draconis Combine) are notable as stand-alone articles. For that reason I would like to see Periphery (BattleTech) undeleted - but I endorse the deletion of its subarticles (which should have been merged into the Periphery article, not removed from the project).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I hear "[This] is notable" a lot, but that does nothing to help the average reader like myself who has never heard of the thing. The entire Clan Wolf article is filled with in-universe plot information, with no out-of-universe perspective and no secondary sources to back up notability. Rather than talking about notability on talk pages, if someone would just add secondary sources to the article and have the article assert notability, we wouldn't even need to have this conversation to begin with. I guess I'm just confused as to why no one is willing to do this, if the subject is so notable. Pagrashtak 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I prefer to edit non-fiction things, I consider editing here a waste of time - which I could be spending creating more notable content; however I don't want to see notable fiction articles destroyed as others put time into them. Clan Wolf is a major subject of dozen or so of books, which I believe satisfied the notability criteria.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Being the subject of a work of fiction doesn't establish notability, however, as this is not independent of the subject, as required by Wikipedia:Notability. It seems that cases like this would just end up with articles that repeat the plots found in the articles about the books. Pagrashtak 05:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, again. I see that there is movement about it. I didn't see that there is a wikiproject about BT. Thanks for your time and effort. Sorry for my late and useless answer, I'll try to contribute with some ideas for the clean up. Bedwyr (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BattleTech

96 articles in this topic

[edit] General (9 items)

Comments: Keep with the exception of Star League Defense Force (SLDF) Uniforms which... heck, I am not sure what to do with it, but its really doesn't seem notable or easily mergeable... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Also, I see Jordan Weisman has an article, but not L. Ross Babcock with whom he created the game. If anyone is familiar enough with BattleTech's early history, perhaps they could create it? Huwmanbeing ★ 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree. SLDF uniforms doesn't seem too much relevant to me... I think we could dispense without it. --Bedwyr (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factions (5 items)

Comments: Keep with the exception of Bannson's Raiders which should be merged into Mercenaries (BattleTech) as a not notable merc outfit (done).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, even with a merge of Northwind Highlanders. --Bedwyr (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nations (11 items)

Comments: with the exception of Star League (see below), they are major factions and should be kept. Perhaps Free Rasalhague Republic and Rasalhague Dominion could be merged, but I am not very convinced of that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that articles on all these major factions should be retained. Personally I think the Star League casts such a long shadow on the history of the BattleTech universe that it also should kept, but I'm flexible on that. Huwmanbeing ★ 02:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Btw, I merged the deleted Terran Hegemony into it for now.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I would keep the Star League article, where other minor articles could be merged. --Bedwyr (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clans (8 items)

Comments: Clan Wolf-in-Exile should probably be merged into Clan Wolf. Clan Mongoose and the Minnesota Tribe are definitely not notable and should be merged into the main list of clans at Clans (BattleTech). PS. Most clans are not notable, the following have been deleted and I endorse it - I will just restore their edit history for possible redirects: Clan Star Adder, Clan Ice Hellion, Clan Goliath Scorpion, Clan Cloud Cobra, Clan Burrock, Clan Widowmaker, Clan Fire Mandrill, Clan Blood Spirit, Clan Diamond Shark, Clan Coyote, Clan Hell's Horses, Clan Snow Raven, Clan Wolverine. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Let's keep the 4 major clans and merge the rest of them :) --Bedwyr (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Games (32 items)

Comments: What about a merge of most of them in List of BattleTech games and List of BattleTech video games? --Bedwyr (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia accepts published game titles like these as worthy of individual articles, so I think keeping them distinct is fine. The list of games serves as a good summary of the series, though there are a few missing bits of info here and there that we might want to fill in. Huwmanbeing ★ 13:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History (2 items)

Comments: Star League can probably be merged into History of the BattleTech universe.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Star League is already mentioned in the nations section. I would keep an only article where merge some other not relevant by themselves. --Bedwyr (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locations (8 items)

I'd suggest merging all of the above into Geography of the BattleTech universe or similar article, with a map. Planets (see below) could be merged there, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree :) --Bedwyr (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planets (5 items)

I'd suggest merging all of those into List of BattleTech planets.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organizations (6 items)

Comments: I think Armed Forces of the Federated Suns should be merged into Federated Suns; Dominion Council into Rasalhague Dominion (done). Eridani Light Horse‎, Snord's Irregulars and Waco Rangers don't strike me as notable mercenary companies, hence they could be merged into Mercenaries (BattleTech) (done).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

ComStar is already mentioned in factions section. --Bedwyr (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publications (2 items)

[edit] Technology (7 items)

Comments:

Are you sure? I think that we could trim and make it one article that might survive, if we can then source it, but I'm not sure how they would do on their own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD'd/prodded

[edit] Deleted

Bandit Kingdoms (BattleTech) - to merge from [1]
Circinus Federation - to merge from [2]
Lothian League - to merge from [3]
Magistracy of Canopus - to merge from [4]
Mica Majority - to merge from [5]
Niops Association - to merge from [6]
Oberon Confederation - to merge from [7]
Taurian Concordat - ALL merged
Comment: the articles have been redirected. If you want to merge their content to Periphery article, it is in the restored edit history; please do not restore the articles as individual ones, we have consensus against that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map of the BTech universe

First question, can we find or even make a free one? Second, can we reasonably use fair use ones? Third, technical: I think we need three maps: for pre-Clan period (pre-3049), Clan period (3049-3064), and RotS period (3130). Finding fair use shouldn't be that hard, although it would be nice to have them 1) colored 2) standardized. They would be used in the Geography of the BattleTech universe, an article discussed above into which we could merge quite a few of the articles of dubious notability (also discussed above).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comstar?

Shouldn't Comstar have its own article? Word of Blake has one, but Comstar just redirects into the main article for BattleTech. Mleivo (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComStar.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)