Staff:Discussion

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

• The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
• You do not have permission to edit pages in the Staff namespace.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

This page is meant for '''staff discussion''' of various issues related to either the Legend of Galactic Heroes franchise or Gineipaedia itself that do not involve specific articles or policies. For archived discussions, see [[Staff:Discussion/archive]] (does not exist yet) ==New hierarchy of canon: preliminary discussions== Way back when we first migrated to Gineipaedia and became all repectable and such, we had several discussions on the hierarchy of canon (IE which media's canon would supersede other's). It was a bit of a murky topic as there was no official English-language media to go by. Well, that's all about to change soon, so I think it's a good time to revisit the topic. After all, by this time next year (presumably) we will have three different versions of the Japanese OVAs to go by, as well as (at the very least) fansubs of the new TV anime, official English translations of the OVA series, and official English translations of the (at the very least, first) novel. Honestly I never thought I'd live to see such a day (though I guess I still might not. The only thing I can say for certain is that we're gonna need a lot more redirects. Anyway, there are pros and cons to each different hierarchy we could use, but I would recommend the most straightforward (below) even though it might very well alienate fans who are too accustomed to the fansubs romanizatioins (note how many Dragonball fans, myself included, will use "saiyajin" instead of "saiyan"): 1. Viz' licensed novel translations (even if they drop the series prior to completion). 2. Sentai Filmworks licensed English BRD release (assuming there is one). 3. Sentai Filmworks licensed English DVD release (assuming there is one). 4. Japanese BRD release. 5. Japanese DVD release. 6. Japanese LD release. 7. Original Japanese novels. 8. Licensed production materials (magazines, models, etc.). 9. Tertiary works (2nd anime series, stage production, etc.). The key are the first two, I think: that novel canon should supersede OVA canon, and that licensed English canon should supersede Japanese canon, and that subsequent adaptations (the tertiary works) be supervised by *everything*). For example, the LotR wiki is focused on the novels, so they take precedence over all else. Inconsistencies in subsequent adaptations are not present in the main body of the articles, but relegated to a secondary section. IE "Portrayal in adaptations." [[User:Canary|Canary]] 21:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC) I don't really have the time to check in on Gineipaedia regularly so my apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere... Recently. I know we've discussed canon hierarchies extensively, but that was prior to all these spiffy licensing announcements.[[User:Canary|Canary]] 22:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC) :I don't really understand in what situation the novel would ever be required to supercede the OVA. The show is an adaptation of the books and should be considered on its own. Two seperate 'universes' as it were, the same as the manga and the show are clearly seperate. That's my opinion, in any event. EDIT: to clarify, no one ever has arguments about Lord of the Rings novels and apppeals to the films. They're clearly understood to be two seperate things. [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 12:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC) ::A hierarchy still needs to be established. IE are we aiming to primarily be a wiki for the old OVA, transform into a wiki for the novels/new show, or for the franchise as a whole? And if it's the franchise as a whole, which material do we prioritize? IE "Portrayal and adaptations."[[User:Canary|Canary]] 21:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC) :::In my opinion, we should retain the current hierarchy that places the anime adaptation at the top (cf. [[Policy:Canon]]), since our wiki here is already oriented towards the anime and not the novels, and I am of the opinion that most fans of this series will still encounter it through the anime adaptation and not the original novels, even if the novels are now licensed. I do hope that Sentai Filmworks do not screw up the character names though. [[User:Glacierfairy|Glacierfairy]] 00:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC) ::::Lordy, lordy. That's just what we need: more name variations. Just imagine if both official translation bring two new sets of slightly-different names. Things could be crazy. Anyway, thinking on it, perhaps we should look to The Witcher's wiki(s?) for direction? I'm not familiar with them, but like us, the vast majority of (English-speaking) fans are more familiar with the video game adaptations than the original source material.[[User:Canary|Canary]] 18:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC) ==Fan translations and ethics== Naturally with official English translations of the novels incoming, I do not think we can justify continuing to host the fan translations here. The original intent was to keep the novel 1 translation visible and preserved for the community. Presumably that will soon cease to be a concern. I would suggest removing all of the hosted translations and replacing their spot with brief summaries. I think we really have to remove them--the question is one of timing. Do we get rid of them all at once this month, or incrementally? IE when story Y is published in English, we remove its translation, and so on. Thoughts?[[User:Canary|Canary]] 22:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC) :I think the typical policy (used by manga sites and similar, for example) is to take it down as soon as it's licensed, even if it's not released or anything. I doubt the rights holders will buy the argument that we're taking them down gradually, and since the domain is in my name and the hosting is paid for by me, i kind of have a selfish motivation to not run afoul of them.... <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 20:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC) ==Planned server outage for Friday 6 March== Just wanted to make everyone aware that, this coming Friday, there is going to be some security maintenance done by our hosting provider which necessitates taking the site down. The notification i received indicated that this may last up to (but probably less than) 2 hours, after which time the servers will be rebooted. However, i will probably not be available to check on it right away, so if things don't come back up on their own it might go on for a while longer. The exact maintenance start time is: * 2015-03-06 00:00 US Eastern * 2015-03-06 05:00 UTC * 2015-03-06 15:00 AU Eastern Let me know if you have any questions! <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 06:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC) :Noted :) [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 09:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC) :Thanks for the notification! [[User:Glacierfairy|Glacierfairy]] 12:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC) ==Server stuff 2014-04-27== I've installed a number of much-needed server package updates today. Obviously things seem to be functional, but i did upgrade a lot of stuff. I also set up some caching for PHP which ideally will make things slightly faster. I haven't noticed any difference yet personally, but we'll see. Just wanted to document it somewhere. Please let me know if you notice any weird issues. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 07:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC) ==Server issues== Something (apparently Lucene, but i'm not sure) caused the server to run out of memory and die this morning. I've restarted it and everything seems fine. There was also a mail misconfiguration, which i think i've corrected, hopefully. You might get some really old e-mails though, if you had some in the queue. Please let me know if you notice any other issues <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 15:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC) :Thanks for the fix! I was wondering what happened but it seems ok now. [[User:Glacierfairy|Glacierfairy]] 00:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC) ::I'm pissed, my up time was 510 days :( <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 04:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC) It did it again. idgi :( <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 10:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC) This time the database was fucked. I don't even know <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 02:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Hello again. :( I'm very sorry that the site keeps going down. It keeps running out of RAM/swap and killing things, but i'm not sure why. There seem to be an abnormal number of Apache instances all at once, though, so i will investigate that i guess. Maybe it is related to the black-listing change i made, maybe my server just can't handle it with the number of spam sign-up requests we get. I am going to disable it and see what happens. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 17:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC) :OK. I've removed all of the black lists except two, i'll start with that. Additionally, i've doubled the amount of RAM available on the server, which should help things even if that wasn't the problem. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 17:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC) ::Unfortunately it seems the spam accounts are starting up again. [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 13:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC) :::I don't know that there's much more i can do from the account sign-up end. At some point they just get humans involved, i think. :::One more thing i can try is to look through all of the text they're inserting and see if i can't add some more regex stuff to block it. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 13:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC) ::::For 10 days they dropped off so I think the original idea was working. Maybe more black lists but not as many as originally as a sort of compromise? [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 13:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC) :::::To be fair, for those 10 days the site was mostly down :/ <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 23:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC) :::::OK. I've identified several patterns in the text that spammers use and have added them to the spam block list. Please let me know if you encounter any false blocks. As far as re-adding one the black-lists, i will investigate it next. I want to see how this looks first. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 01:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC) ==Blu-ray discs!== Hey! Since our quest for proper BD rips hasn't panned out, i went and found some of the LOGH Blu-ray discs. The first one i could find was BOX3 disc 11, which happens to contain episode 57. Although this doesn't answer the burning question of whether they fixed Dusty's name, this is a lucky episode since it contains a huge number of name subtitles at the beginning. And based on those i can say this: From what i can tell, all of the names appear exactly the same as the DVD ones. The only difference is that the subtitles don't seem to contain the Japanese text that the DVD ones do (or if they do the player software i tried doesn't support it). I've included an example for comparison, see down below there. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 16:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC) <gallery widths=190px> File:Guentherdvd.png|Original DVD subs File:Guentherbd.png|Blu-ray subs </gallery> :Awesome. Do you do requests? :) If so, if you have the disc for the Season 1 Gaiden, this laserdisc image of the Perun (the only external image of it that exists in the entire animated series, btw) from Gaiden Season 1 needs replacement:- [[:File:Perun(LD).jpg]] [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 05:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC) ::Unfortunately all i can find for now were BOX3 of OVA and BOX3 + BOX4 of Gaiden, so i'm missing a bunch of parts like that that are really crying out for BD shots. :( <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 06:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC) ==Ship classes== I don't like the way we have these currently. Here is what i would like to do: 1. We create a sub-cat of 'Technology' called one of the following: *Ship classes *Ship classifications *Ship types (FYI: For their categories, Wikipedia use 'types' and Memory Alpha use 'classifications'.) 2. We create ONE article per type — one article called Destroyer, one article called Battleship, &c. 3. Any FPA/Imperial-specific information and pictures can go into the FPA/Imperial sections of those articles. I think this is good for the following reasons: (a) We probably don't have enough information on 'FPA destroyers' or whatev individually to cover a whole article. (b) We would have more freedom to do comparisons within the same article. (c) We don't separate other similar articles like 'Battle axe' and 'Cannon' into FPA/Imperial, why should we do so with ship classes? (d) It will help readers get to the information they're after more quickly — if you type in 'Destroyer', do you want to just read about destroyers, or do you want to have to choose between two different articles covering the same topic? 4. I also would propose merging the 'FPA ships' and 'Imperial ships' articles into a single article called 'Ship' or 'Star ship' or whatever the preferred terminology is, and making it the 'lead' article for the Ship types/classes/classifications category (in the same way that 'Planet' is the lead article for the 'Planets' category). I suggest this mostly for the same reasons as the above. It would also help us consolidate background information and other things like that relating to ships. What do you guys think? <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 07:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) :On the whole this seems like a good idea. However, it seems to me that rather than having a single article per type (and merging types) it would be more efficient just to have one article, period. I.E. "Ship classes" as one page (maybe leading a category? Maybe not) w/ each individual classification being represented under its specific heading. The reason being I don't think we'll be able to muster more than a handful of sentences per ship type--they'd basically just be about functionality, standard dimensions and battlefield role, right? :Regarding making this page the lead-in for a Ships category...? I don't know. I think it's good to divide the ships by faction. Maybe make FPA Ships/Imperial Ships/Other Ships/etc., all sub-categories of a "Ship" category? :And as for the name... yeah, I've got an opinion on that (whee~). I think just "ship." Some old fogey from the 60's (possibly Asimov?) said once that he hated the term "starship" because it was a pointless concession to the reader. In the setting, it'd be pointless to call a ship a starship because OBVIOUSLY all ships were used for space travel--there would be no need to distinguish them. It's basically a term that exists to remind the readers/viewers that, hey, this is the future! [[User:Canary|Canary]] 01:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC) ==____ Guys?== So kine is the site/policy guy, Vympel is the warship/battles guy, and I'm the empire guy. Doesn't that feel... unbalanced? We need an FPA guy. Anyone know anyone?[[User:Canary|Canary]] 18:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC) :I used to find the FPA incredibly boring, but i find myself more and more endeared to their side of the story as time goes on. I certainly like their buildings and ships and their Indian starzone names, if nothing else. You could consider me a pseudo-FPA 'guy' perhaps, if you like <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 05:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC) ::Don't get me wrong, I love me some warships and battles - but I fully intend to make contributions *everywhere* about *everything* when I rewatch the whole series from go to woah in the near future. So .... look out! In the nearer term, I'll be going over battles when I'm done with ships. I might mix it up in the next couple of days, see how I go :) [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 05:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC) ==Galactic Geography== We need to figure things out. (And make a [[Galaxy]] page). We know that the Empire is located predominanty in the Orion Arm. The FPA is located primarily in the [[Sagitarius Arm]]. There are a number of conflicting maps of FPA/Imperial territory (most agreeing that the combined territories occupy about half of the Milky Way). Are there any detailed, primarly-level maps out there (from either the OVAs or Novels) we could use to try and determine what, exactly, the shape of things is? :Some interesting stuff... I'm still trying to build a "picture" of the LoGH universe, and I've just realized something that indicates that virtually ALL of the fan-created maps (or even licensed maps) are grossly incorrect. In Spiral Labyrinth, Yang travels from Heinessen to the distant frontier of the FPA (covering what appears to be about 2/3s to 3/4s the width of the whole FPA. The distance between the two locations is 480 light years. :Because the FPA and Empire are both depicted as being similar in size, we can estimate that both territoris encompass a 2D circular territory about 500 or 600 LY in diameter, making the whole of colonized worlds only about 1000LY or so in diamter, spread across 2 arms of the Milky Way Galaxy. (Again, 2D estimates in line with the Galactic plane). Notice how none of the "official" maps in the OVAs show the galaxy as a whole? That's because the galaxy is too big. Current estimates place the Milky Way galaxy with a diameter of 100,000LY to 200,000LY (and some research indicates it may be even BIGGER). This means that, at best, in by {{d|800|uc}} humanity has only explored/settled about 1% of the galaxy. :Personally... I find this awesome. I love it when a science fiction writer has a sense of scale. It always bothered me how most scifi leaps from "solar system" to "whole galaxy." Will probably try to compile all of this (along with visual screenshots of various maps from the OVAs, encyclopedias, and perhaps fan sources) later this week. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC) ==Featured Article Selection== Wouldn't it be cool if each time the front page loaded, the "Featured Article" list was different? Let's make a list of articles we want to be included as "featured." In terms of general criteria, let's say that they most contain more than 1 section and be mostly complete. Once we have 25 or so total, we can set it up. Sound good? :I would suggest the folowing articles: [[Inferior Genes Exclusion Act]]; [[Legnica]]; [[Tanaka Yoshiki]]; [[Annerose von Grünewald]]; and [[Bloody Night]] [[User:Canary|Canary]] 22:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC) ::Well, once we get enough good content we would ideally want to start doing a Wikipedia-style single 'featured article' with an excerpt and all of that, so i'm not sure how much energy we want to expend on this (temporary) list in the interim. ::As a general rule, though, i think the following things should be true about a featured article: (1) All statements are sourced [disqualifies most of those]; (2) all content is original [disqualifies Tanaka Yoshiki, since it's copied straight from WP — we really need to fix that when we get a chance]; (3) does not contain parts that require clean-up/citation; and (4) is at least ''nearly'' complete. That's why i chose the ones we've got up there now — not because i'm particularly proud of them or think they're interesting topics, i just thought they fit the general idea of what a 'good' article ought to be. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC) :::Only one article at a time? Well, I suppose that works, but that's mostly a formatting concern. My point about determining a list of suitable topics still stands. As for the pages I pointed out above, I've gone through and cleaned them up. All are at a "quality" level, by my estimation, at present. With one exception--Annerose's page. I think the Bio is nearly complete (could stand to be better written) unless we want to add in all of the events/conversations where she was present, but not really involved (the Duel). The main issue is citation, as 1) I'm not sure on the {{}} format for anything other than the main OVA series, and 2) not all of the Gaiden episodes have pages yet. so.... :::I'll also add [[Galactic Empire]] to the list, now that I've finished that page. Eventually we'll want Yang and Reinhard and FPA and NGE up there, too, but I say keep the rest of the cycling articles more esoteric. Personally, I find the pre-Imperial background history to be pretty interesting, so I think that's a good place to draw from, as are any articles that heavily source non-animated material. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC) ==New Galactic Empire v. Old Galactic Empire== [[Lohengramm]]'s Neue Reich presents us with an interesting problem: because Reinhard became emperor through technically legal methods (the forced abdication of the last [[Goldenbaum]] ruler) the 'Neue Reich" is, basically, the same entity as der Alten Reich. Two dynasties, one empire. But due to the numerous social and political reforms he initiated and [[Hildegarde von Mariendorf]] continued, as well has the annexation of the [[Free Planets Alliance]], the social, political, territorial and even economic characteristics of Reinhard's empire are radically different than those of the Empire under the [[Goldenbaum Dynasty]]. So do we view the Neue Reich as a separate political entity with as separate article (the [[New Galactic Empire]]) or do we consolidate everything on the [[Galactic Empire]] page? For a historical analog to consider, the transitions from Han to T'sao Wei to Jin dynasties in China were all legal (and also forced abdications) transitions, so the Chinese nation was basically the "same" from dynasty to dynasty, despite, you know, vast social, political, territorial and economic differences. Most, if not all academic sources, however, tend to divide Chinese history between dynasties as though each were a separate state. Wikipedia does this as well. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC) :I'm not convinced they should be separate entities with separate pages and separate categories and all that jazz. Both the official subtitles and the Japanese fan sources continue to refer to it using the same words and characters as for the Goldenbaum Empire, except in a few very specific cases. (For example, in that passage about Hilde i quoted you from the LOGH Encyclopaedia, it says that she became regent of 銀河帝国 ''the Galactic Empire''.) It's also sort of cumbersome to use in a sentence <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 04:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC) ::I agree it can be cumbersome, but I think I've managed to make it more practical by combining certain things. Basically, even though the terminology and basic social/political structure of the New Empire was an extension of the old, I feel it's necessary to differentiate the two because of the introduction of the new calendar, in addition to the points I mentioned earlier. Socially, politically and geographically we're looking at two very different entities. ::How I've chosen to integrate this "dual" page is fairly simple, I think. Basically, it just means adding "New Galactic Empire" tags to anything that also has a "Galactic Empire" tag, and simply changing the "Galactic Empire" tag to "New Galactic Empire" for anything that only involves the new empire--like the [[New Imperial Capital]]. The Imperial Warships and Imperial Citizen category pages have also been edited to that, in their description, it is clear they include pages from BOTH. In the end, all it amounts to is adding "New" and a space to the text, and that's not really cumbersome at all. And it can always be "hidden" in the link. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC) :::Fair enough <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 02:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC) :::Actually, in re-organising our categories i am starting to wonder about the way we've got this arranged. Here are my concerns: :::1. It seems like an extremely large proportion of Imperial topics (more than half by my estimation) will fall under both Galactic Empire and New Galactic Empire. All told this will represent probably hundreds of articles with duplicate categories. When there are so many articles like this i think it begs re-examination either of the structure or of the utility of the categories. :::2. The 'Galactic Empire' category is being used simultaneously as a catch-all for every Galactic Empire topic (old and new) and as a category ''specifically'' for 'Old Galactic Empire' topics. This can't work — either Galactic Empire is a super-set containing all Imperial topics, or it's entirely distinct from the New Galactic Empire, it can't be both at the same time. :::3. If the New Galactic Empire ''is'' a sub-set, then (a) the New Galactic Empire cat should be a sub-cat of Galactic Empire, and (b) any article that is part of the New Galactic Empire cat should be removed from Galactic Empire, because there is no reason to have an article that is already a member of a sub-set of something also be a member of its super-set. :::4. However, if we did that, then it would falsely imply that NGE-specific topics, like the New Imperial Capital, are also related to the Old Galactic Empire, which of course they are not. :::5. The only alternative that i can see that would logically resolve #4 is to treat them as distinct and unrelated entities. However, although that would be logical for hierarchical purposes, i do not think it would coincide with the reality of the LOGH universe, which is that in spite of its social differences the New Galactic Empire is a continuation of the same nation (in the same way that the 'Constitution America' is a continuation of the 'Articles of Confederation America'). Perhaps more importantly, it would also lead us back to problem #1. :::I am having a difficult time reconciling these problems in a way that makes their existence useful to readers. (I am imagining the follow scenario, for example: Say we have a near-perfect wiki with hundreds or maybe thousands of articles for Imperial topics, and [conservatively] maybe half of those share the GE and NGE categories in common. What if a reader wants to find articles specific ''only'' to the NGE? If he is going to have to wade through hundreds of irrelevant articles, how is it of any more use to him than if those NGE topics were just part of the GE cat to begin with?) :::(This whole issue also leads into the question of what to do about Fezzan — they are mostly autonomous, and their citizens certainly seem to think of themselves as independent, and yet they technically are not. Should all Fezzan categories be sub-categories of Galactic Empire?) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 21:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC) ::::Two points: ::::1) Regarding categories... my feelings on this have changed somewhat, though I have not yet gone through to clean things up. Basically, I'm thinking that there should only be ONE Galactic Empire category, but keep the two Galactic Empire pages. It would still be necessary for us to remember to link to the correct page in text. For example, when discussing the Empire for S3-4 events, we'd have to link to the New Galactic Empire page, not the (old) galactic empire page. That, I think, is the simplest and most efficient system. Ideally, the approach I think we ought to take is simply to have as FEW categories as possible. ::::2) Fezzan should be a sub-category of Galactic Empire, yes. Or, rather, maybe. Wasn't Hong Kong officially an autonomous part of the PRC for that half century or so? Or was it only *temporarily* independent? [[User:Canary|Canary]] 04:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC) :::::Ohhh, this is very confusing. :::::If you are happy with one Galactic Empire category, then i think that solves our dilemma. I am happy with two Galactic Empire pages, so that seems fair. If you'd like, i can have the bot auto-remove the NGE categories from every page, you don't have to do it manually. :::::Re Fezzan: I could go either way. Hong Kong was independent of China for 150 years until it was ceded back to them. And that happened before Wikipedia was created, so we can't see what they categorised them as before that. :p Wikipedia lists Taiwan under both 'China' and 'Countries', though <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 13:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC) ==Detail of Production Staff articles?== I'm curious about how much depth we want to include in the production staff pages, and how much interest we think the community will have in these pages. Other than basic work histories (filmographies, etc.) should we try to include basic biographical information? [[User:Canary|Canary]] 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC) :I don't think it should be a priority, no. In terms of both reader and contributor interest i suspect that far more focus will be placed on in-universe topics, so i don't think we should waste time/effort on this now. But obv it is not something we should ''disallow'' or anything; it will just come later <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC) ==Gineipaedia Icon== What do you guys thing, should the [[Brunhild]] in the icon be slightly larger? I feel like the ship's length is too well matched with the [[Goldenbaum]] seal, and I'd like to see a bit more obvious of an overlap. Maybe not. (This is basically just a sample discussion topic). [[User:Canary|Canary]] 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC) :Personally I'd prefer the Goldenlohen crest. :) [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 07:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC) ::I would, as well. Unfortunately it's too impractical--the Goldenlowe crest has too many details that just don't work in silhouette, and the only decent images we have of it are very fan-arty. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 17:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC) :I don't think there's a problem with the sizing. (As far as the content itself, it's not ideal, but i think it's sufficient for our current purposes) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC) I think I mentioned this to Kine in email, but I ultimately came around to the icon using the Goldenbaum crest. With the Brynhild superimposed on top of it, it symbolizes Reinhard's ambitiin--and eventual usurpation--rather nicely. Anyway, anyone remember if I ever uploaded the original version of the icon anywhere? It was super high resolution. I'd like to try and recover it, if I could. I thought I uploadedmit somewhere but haven't been able to find it.[[User:Canary|Canary]] 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC) :Do you mean this one? [[:File:Gineipaedia.png]] <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 20:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC) ==Rank template — and ranks question== FYI, i've created a {{t|rank}} template for linking to FPA/Imperial military ranks. I found writing out the whole link to be quite tedious, so hopefully this is easier. There's documentation on its page, but basically this is how it's used: :<code><nowiki>{{rank|fpa|fleet admiral}} [[Yang Wen-li]]</nowiki></code> -> {{rank|fpa|fleet admiral}} [[Yang Wen-li]] This is not intended to be used every single time we give someone's rank, mind you. Just the first time usually. After that you can just write out 'Fleet Admiral', so it doesn't need a template. On a related note — how do we feel about the rank distinctions that some translators (like CA) make between navy and other branches? For example, Schönkopf is referred to as a 'general' (an army rank). No distinction is made between any of these in Japanese (it's the same word no matter what the branch), and even the rank insignia in the show is identical for all of them... but it does make sense to translate them that way, intuitively. And if we do do it that way, i wonder how we will make the distinction in the template.... <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 17:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC) ==Novel names== I am not sure what titles we should give to the novels. Technically, they have names — Dawn, Ambition, &c. But they're not necessarily analogous to episodes, so i'm not sure if we should call them 'Dawn' and 'Ambition'. What do you reckon? Just keep using the full names? PS: The manga volumes do ''not'' have names, as far as i can tell. They are just called 'Legend of Galactic Heroes 1', 'Legend of Galactic Heroes 2', and so on PPS: I am working on making all of the covers look nice (as well as they can anyway, considering the scans are god-awful quality) and then uploading them; i'll try to do it in batches of three. '''edit:''' Novel covers are done. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 11:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC) ==Important question re the position of Iserlohn!== This has been bothering me for a while, but it didn't occur to me [[Battle of Tiamat (disambiguation)|how much of our content]] it could affect until just now: So far on our wiki, we have been operating under the assumption that [[Iserlohn Fortress]] is located within the [[Tiamat Starzone]]. However, i don't think this is true, for three reasons: 1. In the first or second episode of the OVA (i forget which), when the narrator is talking, it shows a diagram of Iserlohn's orbit. The point in the centre of that orbit is labelled [[Altena Starzone|Altena]]. 2. The Japanese Wikipedia's [http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%8A%80%E6%B2%B3%E8%8B%B1%E9%9B%84%E4%BC%9D%E8%AA%AC%E3%81%AE%E8%88%9E%E5%8F%B0#.E8.A6.81.E5.A1.9E.E3.83.BB.E8.BB.8D.E4.BA.8B.E5.9F.BA.E5.9C.B0 section on Iserlohn] also says that it revolves around Altena. 3. [http://images.wikia.com/yang-wenli/images/c/c8/LoGH_Map_1.jpg This map], which i think is from the manga, explicitly states that it's in the Altena system. The one thing (well, three things) i can find that contradicts this are the [[Talk:Galaxy|video games]] — they all show Altena as being somewhat distant from Iserlohn. But they're video games. :/ <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 17:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC) :[[File:Iserlohn Position.jpg|right|300px]] Iserlohn would quite clearly appear to be in the Altena starzone. Which, I guess, should be re-named Artena? And then there's this "Revolve Truck" thing.... :So it looks like we're going to have some trouble re-organizing the various [[Battle of Tiamat]] pages. From looking at the Third Battle of Tiamat OVA, it would indicate that prior to the 3rd Battle, there had already been 6 attacks on Iserlohn, one of which was nearly successful. :I think I'm going to make the creation of an accurate map based off OVA information my top priority now. Something like that would have helped us catch this Tiamat thing a lot sooner. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 12:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ::'''EDIT:''' Wouldn't it be nice if things were simple? Thing is, the 4th Battle of Tiamat involves Iserlohn Fortress in a big way, and the [[Battle of Altena]] very clearly occurs very far away from Iserlohn. This is gonna be... messy. It's possible the Battle of Altena occurred in a different, similarly-named starzone. Reinhard says あるてな (arutena) when he orders Mittermeyer to halt Staden. It's possible that the "Altena Sector" encompasses multiple starzones... but that would make Mittermeyers orders to place mines the in the sector absolutely silly. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 12:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ==Opinions: dimming bracketed phrases== Hey there, want an opinion on something. As part of the italic-title template i've created, i added a feature that would automatically dim bracketed phrases at the end of the title. You can see this on the following pages: *[[Legend of Galactic Heroes (OVA)]] *[[Legend of Galactic Heroes (BOTHTEC game)]] *[[Legend of Galactic Heroes (Saturn game)]] *[[Legend of Galactic Heroes (Super Famicom game)]] Do you guys like this? I think it ''might'' help to reduce the visual focus on disambiguation terms, making the ''actual'' title stand out... but i'm not sure. This is something that no other wiki does, so i don't have a precedent. (If you guys ''did'' like it, i would create a template to dim bracketed phrases in non-italicised titles as well.) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 00:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC) :Looks fine to me.[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 00:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ::Looks good. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 12:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ==Name-variation citations== I was finding our current format for name-variation citations a little cumbersome as far as reading, so i'm changing it. It's a fairly minor change, but here is what i'm proposing (and have partially changed already): *'''Blahblah''' (<abbr title="LaserDisc">LD</abbr> subtitles) *'''Blahblah''' (<abbr title="LaserDisc">LD</abbr>/<abbr title="Digital Versatile Disc">DVD</abbr> subtitles) *'''Blahblah''' (<abbr title="LaserDisc">LD</abbr>/<abbr title="Digital Versatile Disc">DVD</abbr>/<abbr title="Blu-ray Disc">BD</abbr> subtitles) The only thing i haven't changed yet is the references to the DVDs, because i want to make sure we are OK with that first. From talking with Heibi (of CA) it seems pretty clear that the remaster DVDs have the same subtitles as the original DVDs — so can we just get rid of the 'original' qualifier until someone can prove otherwise? Or do we absolutely need it? As you can tell i would like to compress this as much as possible. (By the way, if you find the code i'm using too complex, don't even worry about it, just put 'LD/DVD subtitles' or whatever. I will have the bot periodically add the abbreviation help code.) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 09:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Return to Staff:Discussion.