Wikipedia

Talk:BattleTech/Archive 1

< Talk:BattleTech
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Huwmanbeing in topic BattleTech
Archive 1

Old talk

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

since the "classic" plot seems to have been completed, how abourt a complete storyline-overview? --84.129.20.23 18:20, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The classic plot isn't completed jet. Sensei

Wasn't BattleTech also a set of game centers (in California, at least) with "pods" that you could sit in while controlling BattleMechs and shooting one another and whatnot? I remember these from when I was 12 or so, I think, it sounds like the same "universe." There was one in Walnut Creek, California and another in Sacramento, California, at least, I think? --Fastfission 07:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, although I had only heard of them in Chicago and possibly in Michigan. This is the game that is based on.

From what I know, there was orginally one place in Chicago with the 'pods'. Then a company in Japan built a few places over there (memories of a Beyond2000 episode in the early '90s). Then Virtual World started a chain that definately included the Walnut Creek location and one in San Diego, California. They were trying to make a kind of video game social club, and also had a racing game set on Mars that used the same equipment. Rindis 23:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was one at the Dave and Busters outside of Toronto, Ontario that closed a couple years ago. --Goog 20:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, these pods were leased to dave and busters by Virtual World Entertainment, www.virtualworld.com. The lease recently expired, and VWE sold them to private owners. A few examples are www.mechcorps.com (houston, tx) and www.mechjock.com (Kalmizoo, MI). The pods are now all privately owned and operated. Some in people's basements, some still in publicly playable locations. If you want more information, let me know. I Think that the pods should definately be mentioned in the article, as they have been around more then 10 years (they were first released in 1993ish).70.244.36.79 13:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
There was a Virtual World at Triangle Square in Orange County and it claimed to be the second location outside of Chicago. It enjoyed moderate success, but was in a bad location and suffered for it until the mall evicted them. Later two Dave & Busters picked up Battlepods and went on to sell them.


According to a few of the authors (you can find quotes at www.classicbattletech.com), the classic era isn't definitely over.

Yes, I've heard about the pods in Chicago. We should probably say a little something about them at least, but I'm still pretty sure the books were first.

Also, why isn't there an "outside links?" section? We should definitely have a link here: http://www.classicbattletech.com/PDF/CompleteBattleTechNovel%20List.pdf. It'd be even better if we all got together and updated that list, but still, it is pretty accuracte and it does go to 2002, so it's something to work off at least. It's only classic battletech though, methinks.

Finally, it's nice to finally have a decent entry on battletech all in once place. Good job, everybody! Double kudos to whoever detailed each clan specifically.

--James 10:39, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


I'm creating a page on the BattleTech and MechWarrior: Dark Age novels so we can keep an up-to-date list going.

--Patrick T. Wynne 19:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I did a bit of cleanup yesterday—mainly rearranging so that MWDA is introduced before it's talked about in the expanded discussion of the fiction I added. —ATimson 15:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category?

Since there are several subarticles, I think a Category:BattleTech should be created. Update: I am going to create this category as a subcategory of Category:Fictional universes, as the Battletech article(s) are already listed in game type categories. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BattleCorps?

Why no mention of Battlecorps.com? At the moment it's a subscription site for new BattleTech fiction, most of it online novellas and the like. As far as I know it's pretty much the only source for 'new' stuff relating to classic battletech.

"No mention" because nobody had included it yet. Fixed now. ;) —ATimson 06:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Political Entities

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to the FedCom Civil War sourcebook, the Federated Commonwealth was not officially reverted back to Federated Suns until after the war; doing so was one of the first acts of Yvonne Steiner-Davion when she re-assumed the regency. I changed the relevant text back to reflect this. --Patrick T. Wynne 18:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

BattleTech Mod Productions

According to FanPro people, this site is in violation of copyright for hosting downloadable episodes of the BattleTech cartoon. Linking to it here is a violation of the following rule: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright." (Linking_to_copyrighted_works) At least, that was the case several months ago; I'll try to determine if it's since changed. If they do now have permission (which I really doubt), we can add the link back. --Patrick T. Wynne 4 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

Redefine BattleTech?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Shouldn't the first line read a little differently? Battletech is not a board game - it was....2o years ago. NOW, it is this scifi universe, with computer games, board games, novels, etc. Yes, keep all the info listed including that it started with a board game, but what it IS, is a scifi universe, just like how you would not exatcly call Star Trek "a TV show," or Star Wars as "scifi movies." It's just not entirely correct, and for any skimmers/browsers who may only read the first lines of wikipedia entries - however they may do it (ie, popups entries in Trillian IM program) - the beginning should be clearly and say that battletech is a scifi universe.

That sounds reasonable. So follow the Wikipedia motto of "be bold!" about editing and edit the post. If someone doesn't like what you say or has a better idea, they'll change it.

I made an attempt at redefineing Battle tech. AidanPryde 17:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


If we would like to distinct the BattleTech board game from the BattleTech universe, wouldn't it make sense to make a separate subject for both of this?

It is interesting to note that video games using the BattleTech universe does not show the "BattleTech" sticker but the "BattleTech universe" one (even if "universe" is written in small characters). As I see it, the BattleTech universe deserves its own subject, the BattleTech subject being a kind of portal to the whole BattleTech products, universe and derivates.

By the way I think it would be great to detail a bit more the BattleTech board game, in its own subject. I personaly would find very useful a complete listing of the BattleTech books on WikiPedia.

-- JP_Raven


Do you mean the novels or the sourcebooks? The novels already have a page. Its linked under the "see also" section. If you mean the source books, I agree. AidanPryde 02:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean the source books. I was speaking about the BattleTech board game, so I mean the source books but also the rule books and the scenarii and the hexagonal maps and even the boxed sets. In short, the whole FASA listing of books related to the BattleTech universe. Later some kind of review could be added for each of them: what it is about, what can be found in it and in no other book, what differs in this book compared to older revisions (in case of rules), and so on. Would it be possible (from the licence point of view) to add some pictures of the front pages? Finally, the listing could be extended with the newest books, now published by FanPro under licence of WizKids and under the new brand name Classic Battletech Universe. -- JP_Raven

Thats a great idea. Personaly, I don't know a whole about the boardgame and it'd be great to have an article on that and the sourcebooks. Go for it! I'll help where I can. AidanPryde 14:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ka Ragin and "Whence the King"

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There seems to be a false entry in the "In Jokes" section,

"The character of Ka Ragin in "Whence the King" is a sniveling but argumentative hand-servant of the ComStar Precentor Martial, Victor Steiner-Davion. As is common in the newer products put out by FanPro, references to outspoken or supportive fans are often made and this character is an homage (of sorts) to fan "Karagin" from the Classic BattleTech forums."

There is no BT novel, "Whence the King," and it does not seem to be a short story on Battlecorps.com.

BT writers have said (of course) that they only "canonize" players in a good light. To date, it doesn't seem possible to find a fan included in canonical Battletech products in a negative light.

Oddly, there is indeed a person on CBT.com's fora called Karagin. Quite why that entry was made is questionable. If it was an attempt to drag a dispute from Classic Battletech's fora to here, I'd advise the person responsible that such behavior is just as unacceptable here as there.
Addenda- Hmm, someone appears to have restored the Karagin entry. I'm going to remove it, again. JayFrancis 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia and In-Jokes

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm starting to get a little concerned about this section. I'm thinking maybe it should be trimmed, restricted or even eliminated altogether. There are so many such in-jokes and humorous bits embedded within the 20-year-old BattleTech canon that to list them all would be a gargantuan task and far outside the scope of Wikipedia's mission.

I think all of the items listed there should be removed, except maybe the Team Banzai note, but only if mention is made that explicit references to Dr. Banzai have been excised from current sourcebooks due to copyright concerns. Even that, though, I think is an iffy case.

But really, Area 51? It's not exactly a major surprise that a science fictional setting contains such a reference. Duh.

What say you all? --Patrick T. Wynne 18:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the trivia and in-jokes should get their own Wiki page rather than cluttering up a serious overview of the setting. Don't discard all the accumulated in-jokes, just move them.
I've been keeping an eye on it(and adding to it,) myself and have been trying to pare down the superflous trivia.
While I feel some of the major references are important - as is the canonised personalities, if only to highlight the charity work. Do we really need the smaller ones like the E.Presley? Should've though that was self explanatory...
But of course, that's the problem with trivia; it's trivial. -JayFrancis

Could we keep the list of Canonised personalities just to the ones listed at present. As big of a pain as is it to pull Will Mouat and Cody Bergens ref's, If we listed every BT player who'd been mentioned in an Field Manual(including myself), we'd have to start a whole new article! :-D

I think we should keep the Trivia and injokes section as is. Unless major references show up that warrant mentioning. AidanPryde 08:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


With the recent additions to the Trivi and InJokes section, I'm thinking its probably high time for it to be moved to a seperate article..would a quick show of hands do as far as votes go? Sircrackpot 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think thats appropiate.AidanPryde 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Robotech, Macross and the Unseen

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

While an Informed comment on the Unseen/Harmony Gold settlement is nessecary, I would ask the Robotech and/or Macross fan to please stop graffittiing the Article.

That's the third time I've had to remove il-informed and/or irelevant Macross/Robotech/lawsuit references from various points in this and the Mechwarrior article, mostly from the same IP address. You know who you are, stop it.--JayFrancis 01:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the story of the lawsuit more correctly belongs under FASA than under BattleTech, though there should be a short blurb here linking to such a section there. In the interest of helping someone write it up, here are all 7 of the legal briefs generated by the case, as well as FASA's announcement of a settlement. Enjoy. --Robotech_Master 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that I don't known much of BattleTech. But found that Japaneese edition has mech under lawsuit redesign BattleTech L-Zwei 05:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying. Who is suing who and under what grounds? AidanPryde 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
See first paragraph of Mecha#East and West.L-Zwei 12:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Well...we've got another anon edit today that looks pretty pointless in nature under trivia and injokes...unfournatley, we do need something about the mess of unseen somewhere in the article, that could at least link somewhere else explaining the mess. I'm gonna leave it up for now, but I think its pretty suspect in nature. Sircrackpot 22:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced that with text from Mecha article, hope it would work better.L-Zwei 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm changing the last line of the first intro paragraph because it is misleading. Skiltao 21:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Misleading in what way? It was FASA that had to drop the old 'Mech designs no? --Cantis 21:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Because new, non-anime based designs (for other 'Mechs) were already in print when the anime-based designs were dropped, so the legal problems weren't the reason for making new designs. Also the phrasing was a little confusing since BattleTech uses the word "design" to refer to the stats of a 'Mech rather than its appearance. Skiltao 01:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding Mech info?

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

I was thinking one major element missing from this is detailed info on individual mechs. So I thought a list of mechs with specs, brief discription/history and possibly pictures would be very imformative. That way, when reading a novel, you could look a mech up understand more of whats going on in the novel. The only reason I have not started it is this seems like it might infringe upon the copyright. What do y'all think? AidanPryde 08:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it would border on fancruft to me. I'm sure there must be plenty of fansites out there that include specs and illustrations and so forth; perhaps you could put in a link to one of those instead. --Robotech_Master 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea. I don't think it would infringe upon copyright, as long as we don't simply copy description from (source)books. We already have articles on scores of fictional vehicles, like VF-1 Valkyrie (which actually is a prototype for many Battletech designs). Just consider the Category:Fictional vehicles - this bridge has already been crossed long ago. As is the Category:Mecha one, with its own subcategories. Category:BattleTech would definetly benefit from adding a Cattegory:BattleTech mecha, although for now I'd suggest startign with a single page like the List of BattleTech mechas. Wikipedia will become better then Battletech fansites for the same reason it will (or is) better then various other not-only-fan sites already. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I say thee nay! That's way too much info for the main page and I don't think they should be put on separate pages either. There are already several sites in the Links section that have complete info from all the published Technical Readouts; why duplicate? And as for WP being better than the fansites, I don't see it happening. WP is good for many things, but it isn't a dedicated resource on any one topic like those sites can be and are. For instance, I just don't see WP ever being as good a resource on Mechs as Mechground or Chaos March. Does anyone honestly see an article on the Marauder or Warhammer having as much info as the VF-1 Valkyrie entry that Piotr mentioned? I sure don't. And there'd be even less info on the newer designs. All of which means wasted effort when those articles become fodder for a VfD. The BattleTech article is already way too cluttered as it as, anyway. I totally agree with Robotech_Master that it would be fancruft and is therefore a bad idea. --Patrick T. Wynne 06:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is why I suggest starting with a list first. It's kind of strange that we have a List of BattleTech characters but no List of BattleTech mecha. And while those sites may contain better material now, I'd be happy to place a bet that they won't in few years. If it's encyclopedic - fiction or not - it will end up on Wiki. You don't want to move it? Fine. Somebody else will. It will start poorer then those website? Probably. Will it get expanded faster and benefit from hyperlinks to our other content? Betch'ya. To use one of my favourite quotes: The avalanche has already started, it's too late for pebbles to vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Not strange at all. For one thing, there's a much smaller list of BattleTech characters than there are of 'Mechs (please stop calling them mecha; that term isn't used in BattleTech and is therefore inaccurate). And I would take that bet in a second. Wikipedia is a vast resource and contains a lot of info and I am very much a supporter, but it is just no match for a dedicated resource that only focuses on one topic. Will a WP article on, say, forensic psychology ever be a match for a textbook on the same subject? Of course not. Will a WP biography article on, say, Bill Clinton ever be a match for a published biography of the man? Of course not. Wikipedia has more breadth, but not as much depth as a dedicated resource on any particular topic. It's the same with BattleTech. There's just no need for hundreds of tiny articles on all the 'Mechs in the BattleTech universe.
A list isn't much better, because what can you say in a list that gives enough info to be useful without being too much info for a single page? Are you gonna put the stats for each 'Mech in the list? Just the tonnage? Weapons loadout? At that point you have too much info for a list but not enough for a full page. Does someone who doesn't know anything about BattleTech need all that info? Nope. Do they need to know that there are X number of variants of the Battlemaster and Y number of variants of the Griffin? Of course not. But you could make a very good argument that the list of characters is exactly the kind of info such an audience needs. BattleTech is nowhere near a commonly-known thing like Robotech or the Middle-Earth books and really doesn't need the same level of coverage as those. To do so would be hijacking WP for the purposes of a small, overly-obsessive fanbase (in which, of course, I count myself).
There's also the question of scope. There are over 100 different models of Clan BattleMechs (not counting the numerous variations) and three times as many Inner Sphere 'Mechs. Are you going to put them all on one list? What's next? A list of every character to ever get a line in a BattleTech novel? Every planet in the universe? Those would be ridiculous... as would a list of 'Mechs. Never mind that the information is the very definition of fancruft; there's just so much of it, Wikipedia can never hope to have useful articles or even lists that cover it all, despite your assertions about the greatness of WP. (Assertions with which, for the most part, I agree.) They would be prime targets for VfDs and for Template:context. Showing a few pictures of common 'Mechs here in the main article (which I feel is accomplished by the three novel covers) and labelling them as such is sufficient to get across the point about what a BattleMech is and what one looks like. Anyone who is interested in more can check out one of the links at the bottom of the page that contains detailed info on and pictures of all 'Mechs. That's why there are "external links" sections at all; because Wikipedia shouldn't include every little teeny-tiny bit of information on every obscure or of limited interest topic. --Patrick T. Wynne 04:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow those two sites do have way more info than is needed on here. I agree a link on the main page would be the best thing to do.AidanPryde 13:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that notable BattleMechs should certainly have brief info on them - and perhaps even a link ot a seperate page with information, but not ALL 'Mechs should. Everyone can identify the Atlas, or Timber Wold (Mad Cat), but few new players will remember the Crab or UrbanMech (my favourite designs though they may be) Wizardry Dragon 21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that means I am an old player :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed ;) Perhaps the best way to approach this would be to include informations about 'notable mechs' in with the iconography (is that the proper term?) section. Wizardry Dragon 22:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Umm, I am not sure what could that be so possibly not :> Anyway, I suggest starting with a list article, or possibly Mech (BattleTech).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a reference to the mechlist in BattleTech_technology? Wizardry Dragon 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to have something about the mechs, as they are (to me at least) the biggest part of the BattleTech universe. If only I had the time... I believe it's a shame how much detail the games stress upon specific technical details of the mechs, but WP dosn't list any.
It does have much about the mechs, most of it in its own article, BattleMechs. Also there is a great deal of info about the rest of the technology of BattleTech at BattleTech technology. AidanPryde 04:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
there is a Category:Mecha and I tried to create a Category:Mech:BattleTech Mecha But I am not sure it worked. At any rate, I am positive that that is the best place to put a list of articles on individual Mechs. --69.175.211.3 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Separate article about MechWarrior: Vengeance

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

None of MechWarrior games have their own articles on Wikipedia - there is only their list in MechWarrior article. I think that at least MechWarrior: Vengeance should have its own article. For example MechAssault for xBox has an exhaustive article although I don't know anyone who like it - on the contrary many people I know really like Vengeance and I think it's a shame Wikipedia provides absolutely no info about it. Walter Smith 14:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, make new articles, games are notable without a doubt.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I wrote an article about it. Take a look at it and tell me what do you think - it's my first one. Walter Smith 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Clans

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Correct me if I am mistaken, but am I the only one that believes the clans to be a "Major Political Power" in the canon? After all, MechWarrior 2 was dedicated to them, as are many paperback books, as well as a significant portion of Dark Age products put out by WizKids. Not to mention the invasion of the Inner Sphere (Wolcott, Luthien, etc.) Wizardry Dragon 20:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as it is now the only sub-topic under "Major Political Powers" is the "inner Sphere" I think we should move the clans to be under this.AidanPryde 12:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it again, The "Major Political Powers" section only refers to the Inner Sphere. While they venture into the boundry of the Inner Sphere and hold territory in it, they are not considered part of the Inner Sphere.AidanPryde 19:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

However, the "Invading Clans" are, as a group, a significant Inner Sphere power... is there a reason that the Rasalhague Dominion gets singled out, or can it (and the FRR) be moved to Minor Powers? Also, since the Steel Wolves probably don't have full Clan status and are already in the Republic list, I'm removing them from the Clan list. Skiltao 22:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes but when the term "Inner Sphere" is used, it refers to the Great Houses, not any Clans. Those invading Clans are still considered Clans by both Warden Clans not in the Inner Sphere and the Inner Sphere itself. If the Steel Wolves don't belong with the Clans, where do they belong? They are certainly a power worth mentioning. They're more Clan than anything else and their questionable status as a Clan could be (or may already be) explained in the article on the Steel Wolves. I do agree the RD and FRR are minor powers. I dont mean to split hairs, but is Comstar really a minor political power? IIRC, They do have the power to rival one of the four houses of the Inner Sphere, which to makes them more of a Major power to me.AidanPryde 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The FIVE houses ;) What do you think of dividing the Clans between "Invading Clans" and "Homeworld Clans," to parallel how the Inner Sphere Powers are divided? Also, I agree about Comstar. If no one objects by tomorrow, I'll go ahead with the changes. --Skiltao 06:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't Wardens and the Crusaders be a better distinction? Or we can have both, perhaps.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  15:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
"Invading" and "Homeworld" tells you where the clan is and gives you an idea of how important they are, while "Warden" and "Crusader" do not.--Skiltao 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To let you know all Innersphere houses consider planets that the clans control as not part of the sphere so it would make since to not include them in the innnersphere major politicial groups they arnt reconized officialy by the great houses


title length

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I feel that taking off the type of weapons in the intro is not needed due to the weapons are listed in the technology page

I agree with what the previous person meant, if I read the comment correctly. The list of weapons ought to be confined to "technology", as it stands they clutter up the introduction. --Claytonius3 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro Problems

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It was recently suggested that the intro for the Battletech main page was too long. This seemed to be the case to me. So I basically just cut the middle of the intro which was mostly about the novels, the table-top games, the video games, the source books and the tv show. Then I put all of that in a new section. Its a little umm.., "clunky" I guess, since I just cut and pasted it. Now I'm not too sure how to make it "unclunky." Help me with this.AidanPryde 15:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok Someone entirely removed the "Battle Tech in its Various Forms" section and gave no reason or their name. I think this section is valid and this person should at least give a reason for deleteing this section. If they dont give a reason within several days, I'm going to add it back in, with a clean up.AidanPryde 05:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That really dosen't work...there are many tradationally Home clans now operating in the IS (Star Addes, Snow Raven and Diamond Shark to name a few) while there are a great deal of very important clans who aren't considered Invading such as the 3 clans previously mentioned

Kell Hounds

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I am not versed in Mechwarrior history but where does the clan Kell Hounds fit in? It is a clan in Mechewarrior 4 Mercenaries (the only mechwarrior game I have) --Typer525 Talk Click here at your own risk 18:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kell Hounds is one of the largest mercenary companies in the BT universe. I am sure we will have an article on it eventually, for now I'd exect you should be able to Google lots of info (and maybe create the article with it :>).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Uhhh...no, not even close. Wolf's Dragoons, Eridani Light Horse, Northwind Highlanders, Lexington Combat Group, Blue Star Irregulars, Illician Lancers are all equal in size or significantly larger than the Hounds, and these are off the top of my head. Sircrackpot 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say they are the largest, did I? But they are certainly one of the largest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty large, it is one of the 4 playable clans in Mech. 4 Mercs. But I was wondering why it was not on the clan list... --Typer525 Talk Click here at your own risk 22:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Mercenary companies are not clans (Wolf Dragoons being somewhat of an exception, but... spoilers :>).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I was under the assumption that Kell Hounds was a clan. I think I remember it being called Clan Kell Hounds in Mech 4: Mercs. I might be wrong though. Typer525 Talk Click here at your own risk 23:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I guarantee you that KH are not a clan, they are an IS mercenary unit. See this or Google for other pages about this unit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
They are, however, closely allied to Clan Wolf-in-exile, through Khan Phelan Ward Kell, who was captured by the Wolf Clan and adopted into their ranks. When he led the Warden Wolves into exile, he took refuge in the Kell Hounds' Arc-Royal Defense Cordon. --Groggy Dice 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We really have too many elinks, they need pruning (Wikipedia is not a web directory).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap this place is a mess

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

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)

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.

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)

Deletion of BT articles

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

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)

BattleTech

Latest comment: 16 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion

96 articles in this topic

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Publications (2 items)

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)

AFD'd/prodded

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BattleTech/Archive_1&oldid=1136551991"