Tungstenchan: Text replacement - "BattleTechWiki" to "BattleIntelligence"

2025-05-01T04:28:06Z

Text replacement - "BattleTechWiki" to "BattleIntelligence"

imported>Deadfire: Deadfire moved page BattleTechWiki talk:Project Spacecraft to BattleTechWiki talk:WikiProject Spacecraft over redirect: Correcting name to be in line with the other projects

2024-11-30T19:00:23Z

Deadfire moved page BattleTechWiki talk:Project Spacecraft to BattleTechWiki talk:WikiProject Spacecraft over redirect: Correcting name to be in line with the other projects

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:28, 1 May 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	: Thanks, right now I'm still gathering thoughts on stuff. Random aside: should this talk page be tied to the Project page? --[[User:Peregry\|Peregry]] 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)		: Thanks, right now I'm still gathering thoughts on stuff. Random aside: should this talk page be tied to the Project page? --[[User:Peregry\|Peregry]] 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
	::Yeah, it should. I'll fix it. --[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 17:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)		::Yeah, it should. I'll fix it. --[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 17:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
	:On another matter, you might want to finish firming up the project page, so it appears to be ready with the tools needed. For example, you still have a lot of redlinks on the project page. Sometimes, as the project lead -especially at the beginning- you don't wait for consensus, you just do it. I'd be happy to build the [[~~BattleTechWiki~~:Project_Spacecraft#Tags\|tags]] for you, but I'd like you to provide a project icon (such as used by [[:Template:WikiProject Biographies]].--[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 20:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)		:On another matter, you might want to finish firming up the project page, so it appears to be ready with the tools needed. For example, you still have a lot of redlinks on the project page. Sometimes, as the project lead -especially at the beginning- you don't wait for consensus, you just do it. I'd be happy to build the [[BattleIntelligence:Project_Spacecraft#Tags\|tags]] for you, but I'd like you to provide a project icon (such as used by [[:Template:WikiProject Biographies]].--[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 20:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
	::I think I got the tags built. I'm working on the project icon and banner still, gotta figure out something good. I'm leaning towards a McKenna silhouette, thought I'm not sure how to add it to the tag. --[[User:Peregry\|Peregry]] 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)		::I think I got the tags built. I'm working on the project icon and banner still, gotta figure out something good. I'm leaning towards a McKenna silhouette, thought I'm not sure how to add it to the tag. --[[User:Peregry\|Peregry]] 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::LOL. I was looking at it too, and can't figure out how I did it, just last summer. Once you find and upload your icon, let me know. We'll get [[User:Ebakunin\|Ebakunin]] to help us. --[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 01:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)		:::LOL. I was looking at it too, and can't figure out how I did it, just last summer. Once you find and upload your icon, let me know. We'll get [[User:Ebakunin\|Ebakunin]] to help us. --[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 01:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 40:		Line 40:
	:::::Not every ship needs a full history, but I think we should list as many of them as we can by type. Warships are not like regular units in that way and we can still have important notes if needed. There is plenty of information available Post-Jihad / War of Reaving. I'm just waiting for the moritorium to get started.--[[User:Fatebringer\|Fatebringer]] 13:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)		:::::Not every ship needs a full history, but I think we should list as many of them as we can by type. Warships are not like regular units in that way and we can still have important notes if needed. There is plenty of information available Post-Jihad / War of Reaving. I'm just waiting for the moritorium to get started.--[[User:Fatebringer\|Fatebringer]] 13:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
	::::::I added information as I stumbled across it in Jihad books, so the coverage may be a bit inconsistent. --[[User:Scaletail\|Scaletail]] 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)		::::::I added information as I stumbled across it in Jihad books, so the coverage may be a bit inconsistent. --[[User:Scaletail\|Scaletail]] 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
	(Update, as this thread seems a bit anachronistic: Sarna BTW has meanwhile adopted the policy to create an article for each and every named spaceship, as per this Project and the [[~~BattleTechWiki~~:Spacecraft Portal]]. [[User:Frabby\|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby\|talk]]) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (PDT))		(Update, as this thread seems a bit anachronistic: Sarna BTW has meanwhile adopted the policy to create an article for each and every named spaceship, as per this Project and the [[BattleIntelligence:Spacecraft Portal]]. [[User:Frabby\|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby\|talk]]) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (PDT))

	== CSV v. CSS ==		== CSV v. CSS ==
Line 116:		Line 116:
	::::::::Oh, and about the various categories: Spheroid/Aerodyne and Civilian/Military are binary options in DropShip design hardcoded into the rules. We all seem to agree it makes sense to have them. The same goes for the Small WarShip/Large WarShip distinction which is an outflow of the IO rules and thus warrants a category, imho.<br />I created the Category:JumpShips with LF Battery because I felt it was unusual for (civilian) JumpShips and thus noteworthy. WarShips don't have such a category, but that is because you can almost say they have one by default - the Clans routinely refitted the older designs to have one and not having a LF battery is the exception for WarShips. I could live without this category, but I don't see how it could do any harm to have it.<br />...which brings us to roles and factions. These categories I don't like, and would like to purge them. "Roles" is more gut feeling than anything else, and should be covered in the article text, not in a category. There are no hard rules as to what constitutes an "Assault DropShip", or if the ''Excalibur'' can be considered a 'Mech carrier as it cannot combat-drop its 'Mechs. Stuff like that. I feel the role categories are muddying the waters more than they are helpful.<br />The same is true for faction categories. Apparently, a lot of fellow wargamers cling to army books like bibles. Well, BattleTech doesn't have that. If something exists, sooner or later everybody and his dog will have captured one and faction availability is totally absent from the game rules. I therefore feel categorizing boardgame units by factions is between misleading and outright wrong. Plus, the MUL is already trying to cover this in an official function. No point in Sarna trying to out-MUL the MUL. [[User:Frabby\|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby\|talk]]) 02:09, 1 August 2015 (PDT)		::::::::Oh, and about the various categories: Spheroid/Aerodyne and Civilian/Military are binary options in DropShip design hardcoded into the rules. We all seem to agree it makes sense to have them. The same goes for the Small WarShip/Large WarShip distinction which is an outflow of the IO rules and thus warrants a category, imho.<br />I created the Category:JumpShips with LF Battery because I felt it was unusual for (civilian) JumpShips and thus noteworthy. WarShips don't have such a category, but that is because you can almost say they have one by default - the Clans routinely refitted the older designs to have one and not having a LF battery is the exception for WarShips. I could live without this category, but I don't see how it could do any harm to have it.<br />...which brings us to roles and factions. These categories I don't like, and would like to purge them. "Roles" is more gut feeling than anything else, and should be covered in the article text, not in a category. There are no hard rules as to what constitutes an "Assault DropShip", or if the ''Excalibur'' can be considered a 'Mech carrier as it cannot combat-drop its 'Mechs. Stuff like that. I feel the role categories are muddying the waters more than they are helpful.<br />The same is true for faction categories. Apparently, a lot of fellow wargamers cling to army books like bibles. Well, BattleTech doesn't have that. If something exists, sooner or later everybody and his dog will have captured one and faction availability is totally absent from the game rules. I therefore feel categorizing boardgame units by factions is between misleading and outright wrong. Plus, the MUL is already trying to cover this in an official function. No point in Sarna trying to out-MUL the MUL. [[User:Frabby\|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby\|talk]]) 02:09, 1 August 2015 (PDT)
	:::::::::I agree with Frabby here. Also, I wasn't sure if the double redirects would show up on the What Links Here page, but it's worth a shot; good thinking {{emoticon\| :) }} I'm ready to start when you guys are. -[[User:BobTheZombie\|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie\|talk]]) 10:22, 4 August 2015 (PDT)		:::::::::I agree with Frabby here. Also, I wasn't sure if the double redirects would show up on the What Links Here page, but it's worth a shot; good thinking {{emoticon\| :) }} I'm ready to start when you guys are. -[[User:BobTheZombie\|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie\|talk]]) 10:22, 4 August 2015 (PDT)
	::::::::::I've started sifting through the categories and cleaning house. The ''real'' starting point will be when I create the [[~~BattleTechWiki~~:Spacecraft Portal]] (currently a redlink from the Project page). This will provide a list and structure of categories for classes and individual vessels, and once that framework structure is finalized we can finally start working on the individual articles. A few points have crept up already where I'm looking for input from other users, such as should we call the category for certain transport DropShips "transport" or "carrier" DropShips, as in "Troop Transport DropShip classes" vs. "Troop Carrier DropShip classes" - there is a difference here methinks. Same with 'Mechs, vehicles and aerospace fighters. More of that later. [[User:Frabby\|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby\|talk]]) 12:32, 4 August 2015 (PDT)		::::::::::I've started sifting through the categories and cleaning house. The ''real'' starting point will be when I create the [[BattleIntelligence:Spacecraft Portal]] (currently a redlink from the Project page). This will provide a list and structure of categories for classes and individual vessels, and once that framework structure is finalized we can finally start working on the individual articles. A few points have crept up already where I'm looking for input from other users, such as should we call the category for certain transport DropShips "transport" or "carrier" DropShips, as in "Troop Transport DropShip classes" vs. "Troop Carrier DropShip classes" - there is a difference here methinks. Same with 'Mechs, vehicles and aerospace fighters. More of that later. [[User:Frabby\|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby\|talk]]) 12:32, 4 August 2015 (PDT)
	:::::::::::I've been mulling over your statement that the Clans routinely refitted the older designs to have one, and that not having a LF battery is the exception for WarShips. I'm not convinced that's true. We now have a lot of WarShip designs from the Age of War, most of which weren't retrofitted with LF-batteries, and the Clan fleets, by and large, are still drawn from the WarShips presented originally in TRO: 2750. I just went through a sample of the WarShips we have recorded on here, by going through the articles for those WarShips beginning with an A, B or C, of which there are 19 (out of a total of 87). Of those 19, four appear to have been built with LF-batteries as standard: the ''Avalon, Agamemnon, Avatar'' and ''Conqueror''. Three more were retrofitted with LF-batteries by the Clans as standard: the ''Black Lion, Cameron'' and ''Congress''. The remaining twelve appear to have lacked LF batteries completely: the ''Aegis, Athena, Atreus, Baron, Black Lion I, Bonaventure, Bug-Eye, Carrack, Carson, Commonwealth, Concordat'' and ''Cruiser''. While the ''Aegis'' surprises me a little, it's specifically stated that the Clans didn't upgrade the ''Carrack'' to include an LF-battery. While that's not the same as going through all 87 articles to check, it does rather create the argument that with less than half of the WarShips apparently mounting LF-batteries, if that's a significant enough of a design feature to merit a category for JumpShips, it probably should be for WarShips as well.		:::::::::::I've been mulling over your statement that the Clans routinely refitted the older designs to have one, and that not having a LF battery is the exception for WarShips. I'm not convinced that's true. We now have a lot of WarShip designs from the Age of War, most of which weren't retrofitted with LF-batteries, and the Clan fleets, by and large, are still drawn from the WarShips presented originally in TRO: 2750. I just went through a sample of the WarShips we have recorded on here, by going through the articles for those WarShips beginning with an A, B or C, of which there are 19 (out of a total of 87). Of those 19, four appear to have been built with LF-batteries as standard: the ''Avalon, Agamemnon, Avatar'' and ''Conqueror''. Three more were retrofitted with LF-batteries by the Clans as standard: the ''Black Lion, Cameron'' and ''Congress''. The remaining twelve appear to have lacked LF batteries completely: the ''Aegis, Athena, Atreus, Baron, Black Lion I, Bonaventure, Bug-Eye, Carrack, Carson, Commonwealth, Concordat'' and ''Cruiser''. While the ''Aegis'' surprises me a little, it's specifically stated that the Clans didn't upgrade the ''Carrack'' to include an LF-battery. While that's not the same as going through all 87 articles to check, it does rather create the argument that with less than half of the WarShips apparently mounting LF-batteries, if that's a significant enough of a design feature to merit a category for JumpShips, it probably should be for WarShips as well.
	:::::::::::I don't see the point in tracking WarShip availability by faction, in part because that's the sort of thing that's going to constantly change. I can see the merit in having categories to list which factions designed a WarShip originally, and possibly for which factions manufactured a WarShip design, but those categories would need to be labeled specifically to avoid them lapsing back into being availability tags.[[User:BrokenMnemonic\|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic\|talk]]) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (PDT)		:::::::::::I don't see the point in tracking WarShip availability by faction, in part because that's the sort of thing that's going to constantly change. I can see the merit in having categories to list which factions designed a WarShip originally, and possibly for which factions manufactured a WarShip design, but those categories would need to be labeled specifically to avoid them lapsing back into being availability tags.[[User:BrokenMnemonic\|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic\|talk]]) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (PDT)

BattleIntelligence talk:WikiProject Spacecraft - Revision history

Tungstenchan: Text replacement - "BattleTechWiki" to "BattleIntelligence"

imported>Deadfire: Deadfire moved page BattleTechWiki talk:Project Spacecraft to BattleTechWiki talk:WikiProject Spacecraft over redirect: Correcting name to be in line with the other projects