Talk:BattleTech technology

message: Hey liten there is a need for a innersphere part since this section only talks about the clan tech mostly with a breif mention of inersphre tech in the intro but the clan has two which i see has stupid excuss the cander but we must add this asapPopa01 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Innersphere vs clan

message: The article, as is, is rather cumbersome. How about an article split into Weapons/Ammo Tech, Drive Systems/Misc. Tech, et cetera? ArcticFlame 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another split?

message: Noticing that al info on the grounf units and aeropspace units should be split of since these are not technology but are particapating equipment in the battletech univeres. please ote on this and may work on this laterPopa01 03:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =Split off with the units

message: This article has no sources what so ever, could someone fix this?--142.177.159.134 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sources?

message: I’m asking for anyone with the necessary knowledge of the BattleTech universe please to consider merging the myomer article into this article. Having the term itself in the namespace seems legitimate, but, lacking immediate context, the information in that article is too verbose for a non‐fan and apart from the introduction looks more like a narration of the relevant fiction than information about it. Placing the information here and pruning unnecessary references might make it more readable and useful. —xyzzyn 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged. Not pruned, though, guess I'm more of an inclusivist. The page history of the former separate page is here. --Kizor 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[myomer]] article 

message: If I remove editsm for whatever reason, please do not readd them - this could be a breach of the three-revert rule.  Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Read

message: Under the Land-Air_.27Mech_.28LAM.29 section, I keep seeing about 4 [edits] right after "would end its" and just before "official existence." I attempted a minor edit to see if the glitch would dissapear, though I don't think it went through. I'm seeing this glitch under Firefox 1.5.0.4. Any clue whats up with that? --Vix 08:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rendering Glitch? 

message: As far as i can see, this article is solely about Battletech's vehicular warfare tech (mechs, tanks, battlesuits, omnisuits) than everything else; which is good, but limited in scope (Would give good examples to compare, but there are none.) even if that's all Battletech is about. Since I'm not a book person (and you guy's point is in going beyond the games), I cannot add these sections myself, but here's a few things I was questioning while doing the dishes:
* An overview opening. Battletech technology seems based on giving a realistic feel or take to many sci-fi staples, like faster-than-light travel and communication, hi-tech weaponery, scientific achievements and so. Minor stuff like medical and cybernetic prothesis are considered normal, stuff does breaks down, school life is quite XXth century-ish in overall scheme (Source: Mechwarrior books), and cars still have wheels. What else can be said? What about handguns? Clothes? Their knives are blades or little laser swords? Constructions? Entertainment? Do they have cyberpunk stuff like the simchips and hitech drugs seen in Shadowrun? What about the workmechs? Is there anything remarkable in everyday life to be ponted out?
* Also, a section explaining about equipment axioms -- critical space, weight, efficiency (range / damage) and specially heat, which plays a quite big role in the game. Most article seems to assume the reader already has understanding in Battletech 'tech, so those should be explained ja? Kobayen 21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Maybe your first point could best be tackled by something to the effect of a 'BattleTech Technology in daily life' article?AidanPryde 05:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or just an opening section -- but as I mentioned, I'm not qualified to write it. Then, I just dropped my two cents... Kobayen 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea of article 

message: There are significant portions of this article which require editing.  Here is what I have noticed needs work in the article:
* Citations: This article has none.  It needs them, or it may face a challenge for deletion under WP:V.
* Paragraph style: The frequent small paragraphs in the article suggest a lack of organisation and result in an article that reads very "choppily".  This kind of choppy prose indicates that the article needs reogranization to be more cohesive and succint.
* List-like: With the exception of some large blocks of text at the end, the majority of the article reads like a list that is only elaborated on a little.  We need it to appear more cohesive, and more like an encyclopedia article.  Wikipedia is not a collection of lists.
* Importance/organization: With the largest blocks of text at the end, there is a suggestion that the information at the top is the most important, and yet, these portions are elaborated on the least.  Either you need to assert the importance of these articles, or reorganize them to the bottom of the paragraph.
-- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-Editing Required 

message: Can someone restore the pages the had the mechs cuz I would like more info on the separete mechs and all the links for the individual mechs are red.
: The mechs page is linked in the see also section, or was when I removed the section.  Per WP:MOS it would be best to keep it in "see also".  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz"  (Talk to Me)  (Support Neutrality) 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wont do it yet but like all other tpe of unites Mech are unreprisented in this articl just a short paragrapgh about mechs in geral would suffice Popa01 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The BattleMech article was spun off of this one because it was too long. I suppose that a short paragraph would be in order as a means of introduction. Scaletail 00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'm going put one and a sub section for Indimeachs since they have been life force in the enconomy and since the DA saga have become even more of a threat in the battletech univerese. But they have been a threat even before the DA line began just that they went unnoticedPopa01 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mechs

message: There doesn't seem to be anything on NARCs, Anti-Missile Systems, flares, or Arrow IVs. Could someone add something on these?
Edit: After a quick browse through (gasp) MechWarrior 4, it seems that this article also lacks information on X-Pulse lasers and the Long Tom artillery. 68.124.176.160 06:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added info for Narc, AMS, and artillery. I also added a brief section on terraforming and other civilian technology, though that is somewhat problematic. Most planets that are inhabited are not modified at all, so it's kind of hard to define the negative of terraforming. Bombast lasers are specific to MechWarrior 4: Vengeance, so I suggest you check out that page. As far as turrets, well, I sincerly hope you know what a turret is, if not then google it. Scaletail 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, now I actually have something to do on this account! Anyway, there still doesn't seem to be any info right now for Narcs, though everything else is there now. Maybe there should be something about the different variants of the X-Pulse laser too, like the really-fast long-range one in MechCommander and the ER/pulse hybrid in MechWarrior IV. I guess I should be adding the information myself, instead of just requesting it... whatever. 68.124.176.160 (cough) Cipher42 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Missing Items?

message: Cleanup Co-ordination	Cleanup Co-ordination
                     	This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:
*the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English. 
*the article has multiple overlapping problems. 
*the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article
For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.
===Discussion===
I went ahead and did the best I could to minimize the use of bullet points in regards to weapons.  I left the bullets for weapons that are different from others within a single category, but combined the same ones into one or two paragraphs.  I also removed a few references to 'Mechs that really didn't add anything to the subject matter, i.e. stating that a certain 'Mech used the particular weapon being discussed but not mentioning anything special about it.  Hope this doesn't seem like I overstepped my bounds and that it helps out the page.  Crystalattice 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed all the bullet points.  I realized they actually weren't needed with the change to paragraph format and the bolded words work just as well to delineate different topics. Crystalattice 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been thinking about this for a day or so, and I think the best way to proceed might be to break the article up into sub-articles, all of which link back to a BattleTech technology category.  Right now it feels more like a list, and I think most of the sub-topics here are expandable enough to be articles in their own right.M.U.D. 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and removed all the bullet points.  I realized they actually weren't needed with the change to paragraph format and the bolded words work just as well to delineate different topics. Crystalattice 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been thinking about this for a day or so, and I think the best way to proceed might be to break the article up into sub-articles, all of which link back to a BattleTech technology category.  Right now it feels more like a list, and I think most of the sub-topics here are expandable enough to be articles in their own right.M.U.D. 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point 

message: I went ahead and did the best I could to minimize the use of bullet points in regards to weapons.  I left the bullets for weapons that are different from others within a single category, but combined the same ones into one or two paragraphs.  I also removed a few references to 'Mechs that really didn't add anything to the subject matter, i.e. stating that a certain 'Mech used the particular weapon being discussed but not mentioning anything special about it.  Hope this doesn't seem like I overstepped my bounds and that it helps out the page.  Crystalattice 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed all the bullet points.  I realized they actually weren't needed with the change to paragraph format and the bolded words work just as well to delineate different topics. Crystalattice 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been thinking about this for a day or so, and I think the best way to proceed might be to break the article up into sub-articles, all of which link back to a BattleTech technology category.  Right now it feels more like a list, and I think most of the sub-topics here are expandable enough to be articles in their own right.M.U.D. 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Leaving aside the fact that "yikes!" is not really a helpful comment for why an article is not 'notable', there's nothing (that I can see) in any of the current notability guidelines as to why this content is not. If the argument is more of quality, then it should be obvious that this article is being worked on quite frequently to improve the quality of sources and writing.
*sigh*
Kyle 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also at a loss to understand the notice. The technology is naturally of importance, given that BattleTech is a sci-fi universe.  Scaletail 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notabilty

message: Is this section really necessary? I highly doubt that putting a giant club in the hand of a giant war-machine counts as technology. At best, it should be moved to the BattleMech article, since only they can use melee weapons. Scaletail 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All those things count as technology. Mayve not the most sophisticated technology but technology nevertheless. Showers 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absoutly not, Since Melee is just another, ans i note that it also mentions a hatchet and claw that it descirbes as being used mostly by infantry. Melle means physical and anthing of the latter would put under Melee. Popa01 10:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Battle Armor already notes that they have the use of a claw the grab onto a 'Mech, so why do we need another section on it? Hatchets, Maces, and Swords are used exclusively by 'Mechs, while claws are already noted; so I reiterate my position that the Melee section should be either deleted or moved. Scaletail 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that all the other types of wapon systems re listed but Melee, Melee weapons are just a common as so I few the weapon tech part is incomplete without the Melee. And why should it be moved or deleted when if by saying the Melee should be removed all the other weapon tech should also be removed or deleted. Not that I only mentioned modern combat weapons if to please you how about adding classical weapons that can be found in nations such as the combns and capplen that use swords just they would a knife or a guass rifle.Popa01 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs with the battlemech article, as do all battlemech subsystems.  M.U.D. 00:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Melee Weapons

message: Looks like there are a few high-level issues with this article that make it unencyclopedic:
# Too much detail.  This is the killer, in my opinion.  Presumably this article is intended to be an overview of the state of technology in the BattleTech universe as a whole, but instead practically every last piece of equipment from the Classic BattleTech wargame is detailed -- all the way down to flame throwers, hatchets, eight separate varieties of laser, sub-classes of ammunition, etc.  While it's true that military tech is central to BattleTech, describing it in that amount of detail seems way out of line with Wikipedia's recommended style.  (See point 3 in the good article guidelines.)  Much of this detail probably doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia at all, but if it stays, it should be moved into daughter articles that focus on those specific pieces of equipment.
# Poor organization.  The way the article is organized doesn't make it particularly easy for a reader, particularly one not familiar with BT, to get a good idea of BT tech.  For one thing, the current structure seems to be based on how the BattleTech rules divide things up, which isn't necessarily logical.  ("Weapons" versus "equipment", for instance -- only the rules make this distinction, since objectively speaking they're all just components.)
# In-universe style.  At best the text reads like a WizKids publication, and at worst like an actual ComStar report.  ("Warships bristle with naval class weapons and squadrons of aerospace fighters, making them the bane of naval commanders in the field.")  When writing about a fictional universe, a certain amount of this is almost unavoidable, but there's certainly lots of room for improvement.
# Lack of in-line references.  There are a handful now, but more is needed.
I've redrafted the majority of this article off-line to try to address these issues, and would be glad to post it.   However -- a lot of what's in the article now (probably about 75% of it) would be eliminated or condensed into more summarized forms, and I don't want to offend previous contributors, so I'd welcome user comments first.  If anyone thinks a serious pruning and re-drafting isn't justified, let them speak now! :-)
Huwmanbeing 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that significant work needs to be done on this article. Could you post your redraft on a test page so we could see it and discuss it? --Scaletail 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I'll finish the last few sections of the re-draft and get it online someplace where we can review it.  Huwmanbeing 20:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any progress on this?M.U.D. 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The redrafted version of the article's now in place.  I hope it looks OK!  It still needs work, but it'd be awesome for this and other BattleTech pages to eventually achieve good article status, so going forward we should try to stick as closely as possible to the GA guidelines.  In particular: keeping the article broad, avoiding in-universe perspective and making sure sources are cited where appropriate.  Thanks!  Huwmanbeing ★ 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Achieving encyclopedic style

message: I see the page was recently tagged as relying heavily on primary sources, which is certainly true, but I'm not quite sure how to get around it.  The idea, as I understand it, is that the article shouldn't only cite FASA's or WizKids' own in-universe publications, but should also cite at least a few independent outside sources.  Does anyone know of any that might be appropriate?  Perhaps magazine articles concerning BattleTech, or even books that might talk about the franchise?  As popular as BattleTech is, I'd like to think there might be an independent source or two out there that we could cite. Thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 15:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not amateurish — your questions are reasonable.  Wikipedia's point I think is that, in the interests of objectivity, no article on x should rely solely on material published by the creators of x.  BattleTech's an unusual case, though.  It's clearly a suitable subject for an article based on its breadth and volume of material; however, it seems nearly impossible to find third-party articles that say anything substantial about it.  Someone on another site recently mentioned that the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction had an entry for the BattleTech franchise, so I'll see if I can track that down. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?