Gineipaedia talk:Policy

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search

Latest revision as of 19:37, 20 October 2013

This page contains discussions on Gineipaedia policy matters. Any contributor may raise new points or respond to existing ones, but our goal is consensus, not democracy. Please bear this in mind.

Only the most recent resolved issues are listed on this page; for previous discussions, please see the Policy talk archive page. Note: Please start a new thread if you would like to re-open discussion on a resolved matter.

Unresolved issues

2012/12/29 — Captcha?

This issue was originally raised at Gineipaedia talk:Staff.

Given the increasing frequency of bots, I have been wondering whether we need Captcha to block these accounts from being created. Opinions? Iracundus 10:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There actually are captchas on both account creation and the first few page edits. The captchas ask questions that are simple enough for a human to answer, but difficult enough that a bot shouldn't be able to. Some of the questions include 'What is the third letter in the name of this wiki?' and 'Generally speaking, which season comes before autumn?'

I had had a more conventional captcha before this, but it had almost no effect, because bots are just too smart now. When i settled on this one, the amount of spam and fake accounts reduced to almost zero. I'm not sure why there are so many more now. (Initially my assumption was that these accounts are not in fact being created by bots at all, but rather by people in India or somewhere like that who get paid a few pennies to spam Web sites. However, i actually have no idea.)

I guess what i could do is make the questions more complicated. That would probably foil both bots and the type of poor English-speakers who get paid to do similar jobs. I had just been weary of making them too complicated, because i didn't want to scare away prospective users. But i dunno ♥ kine @ 05:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If we could reduce the ever increasing number of spam accounts I think it'd be worth it to make the questions a little harder.Vympel 07:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for some series specific question. Like "What was the first name of the founder of the Galactic Empire?" or "What is the name of the state located between the Alliance and Empire?". Unless they actually knew relevant information then they would trip up. Iracundus 09:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems unfair to people who are coming here to learn though. If they have to go digging through the site to find information they will probably just give up, and we have too few users to be OK with that :(

I will probably stick with basic knowledge, but word them in a way that requires a near-native level of English to answer ♥ kine @ 20:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, i've made them more complicated. If you use another browser, or log out of the site in the one you're using, you can see the questions here:

Log in / create account

(The questions will not appear if you stay logged in, because your accounts have already been confirmed.)

We'll see what happens with it, i guess ♥ kine @ 21:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I know it is early but it seems to be working. The mass registration of new spam accounts seems to have fallen off and now it seems to be just the old ones becoming active and being banned. Iracundus 13:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever benefit we gained seems to have worn off, with the recent spate of daily new spam account creations. Maybe time to upgrade the questions? Iracundus 11:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

With almost daily multiple spam account creations, I think we need to upgrade the questions to be more specific and less general knowledge. Iracundus 04:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Iracundus on this. Their near-daily appearances are cluttering up the recent activities section, which do not look nice at all. =( Glacierfairy 13:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(Resetting indentation)

Alright, i've made a few changes, but not to the captcha itself. I think that might be as good as it'll get. What i've done instead is:

1. New users are now required to confirm their e-mail addresses before they can create or edit pages. (In other words, they can create their account and log in, but they can't do anything else until they check their e-mail and click the link they were sent.)

2. Auto-confirmation (the event that occurs when you become a 'real' user) delay has been increased from 4 hours to 12 hours.

3. New user registrations are now subject to a DNSBL check. This means that their IP address is checked against a list (several lists, actually) of known spammers, open proxies, bot networks, and so on; if the IP is found on the list, the registration is denied.

I've just tested a new registration and this seems to be working as expected. I'm very hopeful that it'll make a big difference, but we'll see i guess. Let me know if you have any questions/whatever. ♥ kine @ 22:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like the daily spam account creation is getting out of hand. Iracundus is being very vigilant in banning these things, but it looks like they can easily get past the captcha (although due to measures taken it seems unlikely they can post). Vympel 02:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

So far only 1 has actually managed to post anything (and tried to move it from user talk to a page of its own). However I do worry that one of these days there might be a genuine new person mixed in there that gets accidentally banned. Iracundus 11:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just have to look at the names closely. So far all of them have "spambot" written all over them. Vympel 12:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything else we can do about these spam accounts? Blocking 7-19 accounts per day every day is getting tiring. Iracundus 22:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps we can try the more stringent measures that were put in place for a while a few months ago? Glacierfairy 22:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Or the more full proof method would be manual account creation only and for people to post a forum post requesting it. Iracundus 10:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Its pretty out of control. I think anyone who really wants to edit will jump through as many hoops as necessary. Currently its just a spamfest and its obscene. Vympel 14:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we please implement those blacklists again or go straight to manual account creation only via a forum request? I did a quick count and I have blocked something like 105 in the past 7 days. This is getting beyond tiring and ridiculous. Iracundus 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(Resetting again)

First of all, i don't think it's necessary to block them unless they've actually added spam to an article. Wikis get loads of registrations every day, it's not feasible (as you've found) to manually vet each one for potential spamminess.

That said, i will look at it again, probably this week end. Maybe the block lists will work better now that the server has more RAM. Please remind me next week if i forget :/ ♥ kine @ 14:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, i've re-enabled all of the block lists i'd disabled, and i've also added a few (not a lot) of LOGH-specific captcha questions. We'll see what happens. ♥ kine @ 03:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks kine! Vympel 12:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it's made a lot of difference. I'll look at it again in a bit. ♥ kine @ 02:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've made an additional change — the server will now ban your IP for a while if you refresh the sign-up page more than a few times within a certain time period. I decided on this based on analysing the log entries from some of our spammers — i found that they frequently reload that page (presumably to get a favourable captcha question).

I honestly have no idea how effective this will be, so let's see what happens before making any other changes. ♥ kine @ 21:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the good news is that it's been fantastic at banning spammer IPs. There've been over 300 bans since i enabled it. The bad news is that, because it has to read the server logs to see what's going on, there is a slight delay, and (as you can see) a lot of the time the sign-up goes through right before the IP actually gets banned.

This is a definitely an improvement over before, but it doesn't solve the issue someone mentioned of it looking bad for us if our recent changes are just filled with spam account creations.

I will add some more LOGH-specific questions, that will probably make them reload more and catch them sooner. Aside from that, i'll have to think on it. ♥ kine @ 04:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for update. In meantime I've gotta do more contribs. Vympel 11:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(Resetting again)

I was looking at the logs and i noticed there are several hosts that are repeat offenders. They are getting banned (one guy has been banned over 50 times just in the last week), but they keep coming back and coming back and coming back, and eventually they probably get through.

So my next step is this: I've added one more thing that blocks repeat offenders for a very long time (months). It looks like so far these people have only been about 10% of our bans, but it's something at least. The guy with 50 bans has created at least two accounts.

On that note, i've added a new tool that you guys might find useful, if only to play with. You can find it at Special:CheckUser; it allows you to search by user for all associated IPs and to search by IP for all associated users. There's not a ton you can do just with that information, but if you're ever looking at it and find a particularly bad offender, you can let me know.

Lastly, i'm going to look into adding a forced wait to the sign-up page, in order to address the log-reading delay i mentioned above. Since you only need to sign up once, it shouldn't be too big of an inconvenience. ♥ kine @ 04:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

edit: Just added a wait to the log-in page. It was easy. I'm not sure how long the log-reading delay is, but i guess we'll see. ♥ kine @ 04:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The new measures seem to have reduced but not stopped the number of spam account creations, and I seem to be still seeing about 6 to 7 per day. Rather than all these countermeasure attempts (which they seem to evade or work around anyway), why not just go to manual account creation only via a forum request? That way all the automated spammers should not get anywhere, and even human sweatshop spammers would have to be able to convince staff via forum posts. I would think this would be the more definitive solution as I don't think the human spammers would be able to go on for any length of time on genuine LOGH related topics. Iracundus 06:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I can do that if that's what you guys really want, but i want to be absolutely clear here: If i do, our legitimate sign-up rate will drop from almost nothing to actual nothing. Aside from the fact that that forum gets checked maybe twice a year, i can guarantee, with some knowledge of conversion optimisation and my own personal experience, that almost nobody will be willing to go through those hoops for a site like this.

Please discuss amongst yourselves whether you'd really like to keep that option on the table.

Until then, if that is on the table anyway, i would like to see what 100% LOGH-based captchas would do. I'm still hesitant about that, but it'd certainly be preferable to the nuclear option. I'll make that change now. ♥ kine @ 01:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, people who are dedicated enough to create an account to contribute are most likely fans who already have a fair amount of knowledge about LoGH, so converting to 100% LOGH-based captchas should not have a detrimental effect on legitimate account creation. Otherwise, if the cluttering continues, I would also be tempted to support manual approval of account creations. Glacierfairy 04:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The spams seemed to have dropped off. Is it the LOGH captchas blocking them? Iracundus 03:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. They're all LOGH-based now, so they keep reloading them trying to find one they'll be able to answer and they get banned. The number of repeat sign-up bans (the several-month ones) has increased dramatically.

I have no idea how long it'll last though. Usually these things happen in cycles; you update the questions, they fail for a while, and then eventually they get a rhythm going again after they figure some of them out. It's just a question of whether they'll run out of IPs before that happens. Here's hoping i guess. ♥ kine @ 19:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

2011/12/15 — Unnamed topics

How should we deal with topics that aren't given names anywhere in the series (anime or otherwise)?

There are a few types of unnamed topics that are easy to deal with. For example, if a character has his own ship, we'll just call it <character>'s ship (see Yang Tai-long's ship). Or if the ship has a pennant number, we can refer to it by that (see GL-202). For the star that anchors a starzone, we just base it on that (e.g. Aldebaran (star)). If a battle occurs in a particular place, we name the battle after that (there are a few pre-Amritsar battles like this)

However, there are some that are not as easy, and the wording gets more awkward. Here are a few examples of what i mean:

Alex Cazerne's younger daughter
The moustachioed guy who appears with Romsky on a few occasions
The dark-haired guy who appears with Rockwell on a few occasions
The kid who appears with Fahrenheit before he dies (he doesn't have a name, right?)
The female repair-crew person who works on Poplin's Spartanian in 015
The satellite of Lesing that the Cu Chulainn crashes into
The river that runs through Heinessenpolis

Memory Alpha's usage more or less coincides with the examples i gave at the top of this post whenever possible — e.g., Sisko's attack ship, Irina's ship, NCC-73918, Cardassian sun.

However, they also make heavy usage of Unnamed <whatever> lists, such as Unnamed Ferengi, Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel, Unnamed Type 6 shuttlecraft, Unnamed moons, and so on.

So should our rule maybe be something like this?

If it is possible to attribute a unique and recognisable designation to an unnamed topic — e.g., Yang Tai-long's ship or GL-202, an article should be created with this designation. Otherwise, it should be added to the relevant article(s) containing unnamed topics of its type (e.g., Unnamed moons).

In general i would go for that (in fact, see Unnamed Imperial citizens), but there are edge cases. For example, we could say Alex Cazerne's younger daughter (or Younger Cazerne daughter, to be less biassed) is a unique designation that most people would recognise, but that is a pretty awkward phrase. At the same time, that character appears in many episodes and even speaks one or two lines, so i feel like she deserves her own article....

I was trying to find a similar example on Memory Alpha, but almost all of the recurring characters are either given on-screen names eventually (like Morn) or they are given names behind the scenes (like Youngblood).

Hum. Complicated ♥ kine @ 19:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

2011/12/11 — Structure of appendices/apocrypha sections

This issue was originally raised at User talk:kine.

I like the idea of keeping all the FFC stuff together in its own section, however more and more I'm thinking the "Apocrypha" sub-heading just serves no purpose. We see this in how some ship articles don't use the title at all. Did a test edit of Airget lamh on that basis to show what I mean. Vympel 15:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm. From your edit it doesn't seem like you're arguing that the heading serves no purpose, more that you want the heading there, but don't like the name 'Apocrypha'. Is that accurate?

If so, that's a discussion we've had a few times back and forth in several talk pages, and although i can understand that the term 'apocrypha' might be confusing or carry bad connotations for some people, my concern is that the alternatives don't fully apply to all of the things that 'apocrypha' does.

For example, you've got 'Licensed sources' there, and that fits right now, but then what happens when that article gets novel and manga sections? I don't think 'licensed sources' applies to those. So then you might say, OK, what about 'Other media'? That would fit for all of the above, but then what about instances like Asgrimm and Pergamonn where there are differences within the animation (either between OVA and films or between LD and DVD)? Those aren't 'other' media, they're the same.

'Apocrypha' covers all of those scenarios quite succinctly, which i think is the great thing about it and the main reason i'm attached to it. Is there another term you can think of that would satisfy all of those concerns? (Or am i misconstruing you entirely?) ♥ kine @ 16:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The tricky part is what happens when the background for a ship has integrated information from both the FFC and the Data Book encyclopaedia as some ships already do. Iracundus 20:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty tricky, i still am not 100% positive what the best way of doing that is. We could keep doing it the way it is, or we could do the same but just put it under 'Apocrypha', and those are i guess sufficient at the very least for readability. We could prohibit combining apocryphal data at all, but that's too drastic. We could also do a structure like this:

Appendices
・・・Apocrypha
・・・・・・Manga (or whatever)
・・・・・・(text)
・・・・・・Licensed sources
・・・・・・(combined text)
・・・・・・・・・Data Book
・・・・・・・・・(source-specific text)
・・・・・・・・・Fleet File Collection
・・・・・・・・・(source-specific text)

That last option seems to me like the most logical in terms of structure, but (a) i'm not sure how it would work out if we ever needed to do something similar with manga/novel stuff and (b) it adds yet another level of depth to the Appendices section, which is already pretty deep hierarchy-wise. For now i guess just keep doing what we're doing though :/\/\ ♥ kine @ 21:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The danger is simply listing everything out by source risks creating an incoherent narrative, given how background information is broken up and scattered everywhere. For example, take the Leda II entry, the FFC gives some information about the frontal cannons but does not name them as neutron beam cannons, which is done by the Data Book. The Data Book gives information about the secondary guns near the bridge as electron beam cannons but it is the FFC that says they are low calibre rapid fire versions. Both sources end up often filling in each other's holes. If we just listed everything, we end up with an article that is just a long listing of one line facts instead of something readable. I admit I am for integration where possible of these two sources (with citation), simply because ultimately it was Wright Staff that was involved in both. Iracundus 21:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, i agree for the most part ♥ kine @ 21:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In terms of apocrypha / licensed sources etc, I think 'apocrypha' serves a purpose in terms of say, ONW/OVA appearance differences, or the Sindur's amazing changing crest, etc. But yeah, I think "other media" would work for novels and manga (we can hardly say they're apocrypha - within their own terms of reference they're cnot). Also Iracundus gives a persuasive argument for having a consistent narrative. I think he's right in the end. Vympel 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mm, so what are you proposing? Something like this?

Appendices
・・・Background information (or whatever)
・・・(text)
・・・Apocrypha
・・・(text about ONW/OVA differences or whatever)
・・・Novel
・・・(text about novel)
・・・Manga
・・・(text about manga)
・・・Licensed sources
・・・(combined text from all licensed sources)

(Keep in mind that is probably a conservative structure in terms of how we would want the wiki to eventually look in the end — that's leaving out a handful of other licensed books [like the encyclopaedia], those non-FFC models, the 15 or so video games, the three or four pachinko games, the stage adaptation, the DVD features, the LaserDisc art books, ...) ♥ kine @ 09:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a good structure - how would we deal with the FFC section & picture thing we've got now? Vympel 10:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I can't say i care for it personally. :/ It would pollute the main 'Appendices' section with dozens of sub-sections that can all logically be grouped into one and i think that the terminology is also inaccurate.

The thing that complicates any solution is the desire to combine sources into a flowing narrative. I understand the desire and generally agree with it, but it definitely makes things difficult because it turns those two or three sources into a special case that doesn't apply to any other source.

I'm having difficulty trying to come up with something that would satisfy all requirements mainly because of that. I thought maybe with a change of terminology it might work well if we did something like the first structure i illustrated above (where combined text would go under 'Licensed sources' and then we could put source-specific stuff right under that), but the term 'Licensed sources' basically applies to every single secondary source except for novels and managa, so that'd be a pretty heavy section.

On the other hand, perhaps we could do something like this (sorry for length)?

Appendices
・・・Background information (or whatever)
・・・(text)
・・・Some other word for 'apocrypha'
・・・・・・Animation differences
・・・・・・(text about ONW/OVA differences or whatever)
・・・・・・DVD features
・・・・・・(text about DVD features)
・・・・・・Alba Create sources
・・・・・・(combined 'narrative' text from AC sources)
・・・・・・・・・Data Book
・・・・・・・・・(Data Book-specific text, if applicable)
・・・・・・・・・Fleet File Collection
・・・・・・・・・(FFC-specific text, if applicable)
・・・・・・Novel
・・・・・・(text about novel)
・・・・・・Manga
・・・・・・(text about manga)
・・・・・・Video games (or whatever)
・・・・・・(text)

That would have the benefit of clustering all of the animation-derived sources (which are our 'main' sources obv) up together at the top, and limiting a section to 'Alba Create' would make that quite specific and avoid the difficulty of including other sources in something more generic like 'Licensed sources'. Then we could put everything else below in roughly descending order of relevance.

Assuming you guys could go for that (?), the only trouble would be coming up with a good alternative to the word 'apocrypha'. Maybe 'Other depictions' or 'Alternative depictions' or something? ♥ kine @ 10:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Urkh. I just don't know to be honest. I find it hard to come up with a preference that doesn't conflict with a goal! :( Vympel 13:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well let's see what the others say i guess. (Moving this to policy talk, btw, as you can see) ♥ kine @ 15:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

2011/10/01 — Chinese names for Chinese characters

This issue was originally raised at Talk:Yang Wen-li.

This with regards to those LOGH characters of clear Chinese descent with names in the 'Eastern' format. Notable examples include Yang Wen-li, Lin Pao, Fang Tchewling, and Ulanhu. For these characters, the original official Japanese DVDs have Chinese subtitles and dub. Given the use of the anime in this wiki as higher canon, I move that these official Chinese subtitles be used as the names of these particular characters. In the 3rd Battle of Tiamat Gaiden, we see Ulanhu with a pennant on his bridge with character 马, or horse. This indicates the use of the Chinese character system is still existent at least in some form in the LOGH era, so this issue of the Chinese names isn't a completely irrelevant issue. Iracundus

Just to clarify in case anyone is too lazy to read the talk page this was started on: The question being asked here is whether characters of Chinese descent should have their Chinese names (taken from the official Chinese subtitles) included in the top bit of articles, like this —

Ulanhu (Japanese: ウランフ, Chinese: 伍蘭夫) was a vice admiral and the commander of the FPA 10th Fleet.

— or whether they should be limited to the Name variations section at the bottom of the articles.

My gut feeling on this is to leave non-Japanese names to Name variations. Firstly i worry about consistency of formatting, and secondly, in spite of the example given above, i can't recall any outright indication that these Chinese names are relevant to the non-Chinese-translated series.

That said, i guess i don't feel all that strongly about it. I will go along with whatever the majority says on this ♥ kine @ 03:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Ulanf" is a name of Mongolian origin not Chinese. The original japanese writing should precede all other languages and be listed because it's the original work. If we know how it's written in the specific language then that writing should be adopted as "correct translation". It's all about translation here. We are using the alphabet so the appropriate or general alphabet version should be used when translating from the various languages. Almael 19:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ulanhu is of Mongolian origin however the LOGH character Ulanhu has a pennant with a Chinese character on it. Like the historical Ulanhu( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhu), he can have an official Chinese transliteration/translation of his Mongolian name, much like how Yang Wen-li is a direct transliteration of Chinese characters. Iracundus 00:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

2011/07/06 — Reorganization

I've got a couple thoughts about the current structure of the wiki.

First: Vympel has done a great job with lots of information on ships and battles and fleets. But the problem is, that information is a bit hard to access. I would suggest removing individual ships from the technology category branches, and create a NEW category tree (under Culture, I guess) to put all fleets, individual ships, battles, etc. A "Military" category, or something like that, and place it on the side-bar, along with a few sub-categories like, Battles, Fleets, warships, etc. The "Armed Forces" pages would also belong here. This way all of this content would be more accessible.

Second: Kind of a minor addition to the above, but I've been thinking more about the "Armed Forces" moniker. And the more I think on it, the less I like it. The wording sounds very, very clunky and awkward to me. Especially when we get to the Iserlohn Republic Armed Forces. "Iserlohn Fleet," "Alliance Fleet," and "Imperial Fleet" seem much more fluid to me, so perhaps we ought to revisit this. Canary 20:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that vessels should remain under the Technology category. However, there's no reason that the vessel categories themselves can't be added to some other Military category. The only problem for me is that it needs to be a logical hierarchy, the idea of having a web of things that are all arbitrarily connected makes me very nervous. Not that i am saying that's how it would have to be, just that we have to be careful in setting it up. I will think about it further

Re the term 'Armed Forces', i agree actually. I dislike the term, particularly its use of capitalisation, which implies that it is the official name (and to my knowledge it's not). I know that i argued in some long-lost talk page that we should avoid calling them '____ Fleet', because naturally from a real-world perspective there must be people who aren't really in a fleet, but now that i've been rewatching the episodes where Rockwell is in charge of the military, i'm starting to wonder if i was wrong. Perhaps the entire Alliance military really is part of the fleet. If it is, then our Alliance military article should be called Free Planets Alliance Starfleet, per the name used in the 'In the Eternal Night' subtitles and also on some of the characters' arm patches (Sithole's, maybe, i think)?

Iserlohn Republic and El Facil both have clearly distinct names as i mentioned in the other talk page i've just posted to, so those are OK. That would only leave the Imperial military. I don't recall seeing an official name that could cover their whole organisation, but we'd have to double-check. Maybe the titles of the three chiefs of staff would help us ♥ kine @ 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember those titles as being very helpful, but I'd have to double check. Maybe the dictionary has something? Anyway, for the moment I'm thinking that it's probably safe to assume that all other military branches are PART of the fleet (for each nation) because in this sci-fi setting, every other branch of the military would be completely dependent on the fleet for communications, supplies, and transportation. Sort of like how the USAF was originally part of the US Army. That "Fleet" would just be a general synonym in-universe for "armed forces."

The only HQs we ever see in the Empire, at least is the Fleet Headquarters on Odin. Given that Reinhard & Siegfried were in the Navy, yet were assigned to... Kapche Lanke(?) as... infantry? tank operators? ... anyway, it seems clear at least that for the Galactic Empire (and, therefore, the NGE as well) there's ONLY the "navy." Canary 00:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we see the Fezzan Ministry of War as well. But i distinctly remember the subtitles for those two being unhelpful, they are just Ministry of War in German and Ministry of Military Affairs in Japanese.

It did occur to me though that in the same episode where the subs show Free Planets Alliance Starfleet, they also refer to the Imperial fleet as the Reichsflotte. I'd have to double-check what the Japanese said, but our precedent so far has been to use the English equivalent of whatever the German subtitles say (which is why our articles are about the Ministry of War instead of the Ministry of Military Affairs), so if we go off that then naturally we should just call it Imperial Fleet ♥ kine @ 00:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

2011/06/23 — Counting appearances

Something i've been thinking about recently is how exact we want to be when counting appearances of things. If you directly see a person's face or an external shot of a building or ship or whatever, that's an easy matter. But what about less straight-forward situations, like the following:

Internal shots — If a scene takes place on the bridge of a ship, or in a room inside of a particular building, does that count as an appearance of that ship/building?

Terrestrial shots — Do we count every single appearance of every single room and building on Odin as an appearance for Odin?

Stars in the sky — Does every episode that takes place on Odin in the day-time count as an appearance for the star Valhalla? (Same for Heinessen/Bharat, Earth/Sol, Castrop/Castrop, Fezzan/Fezzan, Urvashi/Gandharva, &c.)

Starzones — Does every appearance of a star or planet or asteroid or whatever inside a starzone count as an appearance for the starzone? If the chiefs of staff have a conversation in the Kriegsministerium, is that an appearance of the Valhalla Starzone? If Kircheis dies on Geiersburg, is that an appearance of the Freyja Starzone?

When i think of how we should do appearances, only one thing seems certain, and that is that only specific, individual things should have them listed — classes of things or generic concepts should not. We also have a precedent for including non-literal appearances of things, like bridges of ships and pictures/paintings of people. So my mind, in attempt to be ultra logical, is leaning towards saying yes to all of the above. But i don't know, i feel like i haven't fully considered it ♥ kine @ 07:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

2011/04/15 — Article Tense

So we've decided to write all applicable articles from an in-universe perspective. Great! But a problem arises--from when are we writing? To me, it makes sense to write from a position after OVA #110. What this means, however, is that we have some trouble when it comes to writing about things that only exist within a specific time frame. For example, starzones. Where is Astarte? From our perspective, it's a starzone within the New Galactic Empire. But the same can be said for every starzone, and most fans (I should think) persist in thinking of the logh setting in terms of FPA versus Empire. For starzones, for exmaple, I've started writing, "X is a starzone in the former Free Planets Alliance," and so on.

Basically, what I'm saying is the tense of each article needs to be more than just simply written in the past tense, it also needs to reflect the fact that thins have changed. That the FPA and Empire and Fezzan don't exist any more, that the only "present" political entities that exist are the New Galactic Empire and the autonomous regions around Heinessen that were established at the end of the series (which, as I understand things, are a "part" of the NGE in the same way Fezzan was a part of the GE. Sort of like how Australia still owes fealty to the Queen. Canary 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What i had put in our policy pages — and this again is based on Memory Alpha — is that we are writing from the perspective of someone who exists far enough into the future that everyone in the series is gone, but not far enough for astronomical bodies to have blown up / been destroyed / whatev. So, all articles about people and cities and governments are written in past tense, and all articles about planets and stars (as well as eternal concepts like 'terraforming' and 'ships') are written in present tense. (Otherwise stuff gets complicated and inconsistent)

So i would say that that means 'in the former Free Planets Alliance' is absolutely fine. Whether we would also want to say 'in the former New Galactic Empire' is another matter. Personally i would prefer to say that a planet was in the New Galactic Empire, but leave out the 'former' so that it's a little more open-ended. This is again based on Memory Alpha's usage ('Earth was the capital planet of the Federation', but they don't explicitly state that the Federation no longer exists). ♥ kine @ 12:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

2011/05/12 — Topics specific to novels/manga

How are we going to treat topics that are specific to the novels and manga? For example, in the manga, there is a character named Elizabeth von Castrop who seems to be the commander of Castrop's personal military (and obviously a relative of his, although i'm not sure how exactly they're related). She is never even mentioned in the OVA.

Do we create an article for her? If so, how should it be structured? Normally manga information is only allowed in the Apocrypha section — but if the character never appears in the OVA, obviously that would make for a somewhat oddly structured page. However, perhaps that's unavoidable. Not sure ♥ kine @ 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how other wikis structure this kind of thing, but I would suggest simply naming the page: "Elizabeth von Castrop (manga)." And do the same for any novel/manga characters that don't appear in the OVAs. For characters that DO appear in the OVAs, well, that's what the apocrypha section is for, right? Canary 06:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that might work. We'd have to create new policies for manga-specific characters and stuff though. Guess we can work it out more fully when the time comes ♥ kine @ 11:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

2011/05/08 — Surname Determination

We've discussed this elsewhere, but a recent dilemma makes be want to revisit this particular issue. Namely, do we make assumptions about surnames if they are not explicitly mentioned? My dilemma involves two people by the same name Elizabeth and Elisbaeth. (I'm not sure where either the 'z' or 's' came from, it's possible both should be 'z' or both 's'). Two very different people with the same name. Thing is, when it comes to commoners, we have no way to know whether a surname even exists to begin with, but these two women are both Nobles. Because Elizabeth is married to Rudolf von Goldenbaum, it's logical that her name would be "Elizabeth von Goldenbaum." As Elisabeth is the daughter of dear old Otto, it's clear enough that her name is Elisabeth von Braunschweig (but a bit more iffy--what if she's married? Presumably her mother, a Goldenbaum, became a von Braunschweig....)

So do we make any assumptions about surnames, and if we do so, how shall we make the determination?

I prefer not to make assumptions if possible, as i've stated elsewhere. What that means for the specific examples you've cited — i'd have to look into it further. My guess though is that this will not be too much of an issue in practice. I suspect that the Encyclopaedia or one of the art binders will provide surnames for us, and i support the notion of allowing those names if we have none other to go on. (This is similar to MA — they relax their canon rules [for names only] in the event that a character goes unnamed in canon but is named in some other legitimate source.)

In a hypothetical situation where we absolutely could not find a surname, i would say we should look at it case-by-case. ♥ kine @ 06:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got a lot of stuff to try and add this weekend. Several characters only have 1 name. Some have no names. Keep an eye out for 'Grandpa Dusty' and his son-in-law. Canary 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

2011/04/24 — Official/canon name spellings

We are undecided as to what name spellings should be considered canon for the purposes of Gineipaedia.

My position is that we should generally follow a newest-first policy — making the official DVD subtitles (seen on the Nemesis rips, not the CA ones) the current top-priority source for the spelling of names. However, we would also want to be able to override that policy when the DVD names fail us. An example that i frequently cite is Dusty, who is called 'Dusty Attemborough' by the DVDs. In his case i would like us to be able to use the more correct LD name (Attenborough). Otherwise, the DVD names are generally more accurate (i.e., 'true to life') than the LD ones — Maurya vs Mauria, Sithole vs Sitolet, Schönkopf vs Schenkopp, and so on.

Whatever we decide on, we are going to have a list of common alternative names at the bottom of each article, so they will eventually all be listed somewhere on the site. The only question is, what do we use officially — how do we spell the article titles, how do we spell the names in body text, &c. ♥ kine @ 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, I think that every name spelling should be sourced for each article. There are a number of articles I see with weird names that just leave me thinking "huh?" because it's so unfamiliar. Secondly, the "Official DVD subtitles" are several generations out-of-date. Neither the remastered DVDs nor the Blu-Ray releases of LoGH use any name-plates at all, so I don't think it's wise to lock ourselves onto so old a standard. Given that these plates were intentionally removed by the producers, I believe they're worth ignoring. (Generally speaking, our "order of reliability" goes BluRay, then Remaster, then DVDs, then Laserdisc). Third: at the very least, the various spellings used by CA for all of their fansub versions (3, I believe) should be included as "alternate spellings" and have redirects. Fourth and finally, no matter what we decide on the "official" spelling we will need to note (and remember) that whatever we decide on will only be a TEMPORARY 'official' determination, pending a possible, officially-licensed translation of either the logh ovas, or novels.--Canary

My response to Canary's points above:

I am not opposed to sourcing names. How would you recommend we do so? Maybe repurpose 'Alternative names' so that it lists all of them instead?

Where does your claim that the official DVD subtitles are out of date come from? I know that the remaster and Blu-ray rips that have been released don't include subtitles, but that doesn't mean anything, it's just a decision that the release groups made. Perhaps we should ask someone from CentralAnime (who presumably own the DVDs/BDs) if they are included on the original discs? Or do you have a source?

Even if the new releases don't have subtitles, how else would we decide what to go with? The only evidence we have of 'officialness' either way when it comes to names is the fact that the official LOGH Web site uses the same names (with the exception of Dusty) as the ones on the DVD. That suggests to me that they are more accurate than not.

Regarding redirects and citations from other name variations, i absolutely agree 100%

Regarding a future English translation, i agree that they would take precedent. I can add a note about this to the policy pages. ♥ kine @ 19:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue of missing name plates with heibi on the Central Anime forum in the recent past - they are indeed still on the DVDs (and presumably blu-ray rips), but they don't carry over automatically, so they're forced to put them back in manually. I agree that names should be sourced (perhaps in the alternative names section?) and in terms of ship names especially, maybe a little blurb as far as the "real" English name and what it actually means (i.e. "Garga Falmul" means nothing but "Galga Farmr" definitely means something, and is amusingly appropriate to Lennenkampt (kampf's?) final fate.)Vympel 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming the name-sub thing, that's really helpful. What's your opinion on which names we should choose as 'official'? Do you agree with using whatever's the most common, or do you prefer going with whatever the newest available is (with or without a 'Dusty Clause')?

Also, as far as citing names, what do you reckon the format for that should be? Some of the episode titles can get quite long, so if we use the full episode citations, plus which release (LD/DVD/BD), those one-line citations we have can start turning into two- or three-line citations. Is that OK? Or should we have a names-specific abbreviated citation format?

Lastly, what's a good name for this new combined names section? Maybe 'Name variations'? What do you think? ♥ kine @ 01:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm not too up on all the differences so its hard for me to have an opinion on what names should be 'official'. As far as combined names section, I'd say 'Name variations' is perfectly fine.Vympel 06:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Hum. We are at impasse then — as far as canon-ness anyway. I will have the bot replace 'alternative names' with 'name variations' now though. ♥ kine @ 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please include whichever name is used for the page's title with the name variations. EVERY name should be included. Canary 00:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how we'll do it. I don't think the bot can do that for us, but i did have it replace 'Alternative names' by 'Name variations'. (I also had it add 'Appendices' to most of the articles that didn't have it — but there will be some left that have weird formatting. We'll have to get those by hand. But that's... not actually relevant to this conversation...) ♥ kine @ 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, having looked at the Nemesis rips, I was interested to see a few of the ship names were a lot closer to what (Japanese) fandom tells us they should be in English than the LD rips (and by extension CA's DVD rips). Of course, some were still just as weird as the original LD names. I imagine the same goes for various character names. I think I agree with Kine in that we should go from the DVDs rather than the LDs. For example (and I apologise that my focus is on ships so much but I'm just that way inclined) take the 3rd Fleet flagship. The LD rip says its "Ku Horin", the DVD rip says "Cu Chulainn". One of these names actually means something. Winner is Cu Chulainn. Same with the 8th Fleet flagship - LD rip says Kulishuna, DVD rip says Krishna. Krishna wins. Mittermyer's ship? Its IIRC "Beiowolf" in the LD rip, "Beowulf" on the DVD. Beowulf just massively wins. Also IIRC the DVD rip takes care to include omlauts (is that you spell it) in the German names, which I think is pretty important. I believe this lends credibility to the DVD rip name plates as being both a: newer and b: having a tendency to be more accurate. However, I think the variation is such that case-by-case analysis is still required - sometimes it clear that both the LD and DVD just got the names wrong, and we have to choose. Dusty is a serviceable example of when you need to look at something case by case.Vympel 11:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you have encapsulated my feelings pretty well. And, just to clarify, we would only be using the original/Nemesis DVDs because it's all we have at this particular moment. By default, the newest should win, so that would mean that whenever we do manage to get access to the official name subtitles from the remasters and/or Blu-rays, those would take precedent. But as it is, all we have are the original DVDs and the LDs (Heibi2 from CA has confirmed that he uses the LD names for all of the CA remaster rips). ♥ kine @ 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh! This will perhaps shed some more light on the situation: I've asked Heibi2 about the names (see here) and he's confirmed two things: (1) The names he uses in the CA DVD rips are the LD names, because he prefers them over the newer ones, and (2) the physical remaster DVDs have the same names as the Web site, and therefore presumably the same as the original DVDs. So that should hopefully address any concerns of outdated-ness. ♥ kine @ 06:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The obvious issue being the official website only has a handful of names. If we can get our hands on the tiles for the Remaster or BDs somewhere down the line, that would be ideal. Granted, at the end of the day, we'll still be accepting engrish in lieu of an official romanization. As such, it may be best simply not to have any "canon" name spelling, and just make all the versions of a given name "accepted", with page title spelling following the order of most-recent romanization (BD>RM>DVD>LD). It may be that logh will never see a licensed English translation, but until that day, I think we can't really call anything 'official' without making uncomfortable presumptions. Canary 03:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, naturally we would not mean to imply that our 'canon' is in any way endorsed by the franchise. I can make this clear on the policy pages at some point — any unqualified use of the term 'canon' is specific to this Web site only and can be superseded at any time by a 'higher power'. Any unqualified use of 'official' simply means that it was produced directly by the franchise's owners/producers (as opposed to fan subs or anything else).

If you are happy with a newest-first policy, that resolves 90% of this question. The only other question is, should we have a Dusty Clause? Since we don't have access to the 'official' subtitles for the BDs or remaster DVDs, we have no way of knowing if they've fixed his name in the newer versions. What do we do about it in the mean time? (Same question for any other name that appears 'wrong' in the original DVD subtitles.) ♥ kine @ 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could gain access to the BD or even remaster subs. Oh well. Re: wrong names... I would say we don't change things. As per our earlier discussion, when it comes to names in particular, we have no way of knowing how the spelling and pronunciation may have evolved in Tanaka's history. Of course, by not changing incorrect names, we're assuming that any and all incorrect spellings are intential, similar to 'Hari' instead of 'Harry' in Asimov's famous novels. That said, Asimov made a habit of playing with language like that, whereas Tanaka (seems) to be going for an "exotic" flair to the names be incorporating lots of German and bits of English and Chinese. So, basically, I don't know. We can go with the incorrect names and include the 'real' spelling in the appendices; we can change the name to what we think it should be; or we can handle this on a case by case basis and go with whatever sounds best. Or we can follow CA's chosen name because it's the one our fanbase is likely to be most familiar with. At the moment, I have no strong opinion any way. So... congratulations, Vympel, it's up to you! Canary 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've recently realized that LoGH getting a Western release is far from being an impossibility: it is actually probable. For now, at least. Not the OVAs, as of yet, but the novels. Which begs and interesting question: if the novels DO get an officially-licensed translation (and the OVAs do not) then do we accept the novel names as the "canon" spellings? Canary 03:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a VERY tricky question. I am not sure how i feel. On the one hand, we are primarily intended to be a resource for the anime, with everything else as a secondary focus, so it would seem to conflict somewhat with that. On the other hand, that would be an official English translation!

The possibility of LOGH, novel or otherwise, getting an English translation actually presents heaps of potential problems for us. For example, what if they decided to change the name of the series itself in a theoretical English translation? Like, what if they made it 'Legend of the Star Heroes' or something? We'd have to change all of our articles, all of our citation templates.... And never mind what would happen if they did translate the OVA — the episode titles would probably all be different. Shit would be wild.

This is all something to think about, but for the time being i don't think i can decide. I say let's wait and see what happens if this does come to pass ♥ kine @ 03:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues

2011/05/14 — Italicising titles

Note: This policy matter is considered to be resolved and is archived for purely historical reasons. If you would like to re-open the matter for discussion, or ask a question, please create a new thread at Policy talk.

Up until now, we have not been italicising the titles of books and the like. This is incorrect according to most English rules, but we (Canary and i) had discussed it a while back and we both agreed that italicising things is sort of irritating.

However, now that i've been messing with these novel and game articles, i'm starting to re-consider my thinking. Putting quotes around things over and over again within an article is messy-looking, and leaving the titles 'bare' can be confusing. Italicising would solve those problems for the most part.

What do you guys reckon? I want to get an OK before i start changing things ♥ kine @ 18:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine with me. We could also bold things (we do, after all, bold the titles of each episode in each episode's own article). Canary 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's a separate thing. On Wikipedia and Memory Alpha, those bolded titles are also italicised when applicable (like they italicise 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine'). I think i'll do that. ♥ kine @ 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving this to resolved ♥ kine @ 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

2011/05/14 — Stars and starzones: separate or combined?

Note: This policy matter is considered to be resolved and is archived for purely historical reasons. If you would like to re-open the matter for discussion, or ask a question, please create a new thread at Policy talk.

I noticed that we've redirected Dagon to Dagon Starzone. This is how i had initially envisioned all of our star/starzone articles being set up (star redirects to starzone, then we have more information on the star there) — but so far i think most other stars have their own articles. In fact, we've even got a separate category for stars themselves.

I am open to doing it either way, personally. Both methods have their logic. But in the interest of consistency we should probably decide. What do you reckon? ♥ kine @ 11:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need separate categories, if only because at least 1 starzone (the Proxima Starzone) seems to be home to three stars. And, IIRC, binary systems are fairly common in the "real" galaxy. Canary 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with this; however, i was thinking something just now. Say i'm your average reader, and i'm watching through LOGH, and i get to the part where the subtitles mention the 'Holbit system', and i want to learn more about that. When i go to Gineipaedia, and i pop 'Holbit' into the search field, which am i more likely interested in: the starzone, or the star itself? Since the latter is never actually mentioned or seen (and this is common for stars in the series), probably i want the starzone, right?

Given that, should we maybe make the following policy? We keep the articles separate, but we name all of the star-specific ones like 'Dagon (star)' and 'Amritsar (star)'. Then, we make 'Dagon' and 'Amritsar' redirect to 'Dagon Starzone' and 'Amritsar Starzone'. That way, the reader is sure to get the most amount of information the first time they search, instead of having to go to the star page first, which in 99% of cases is never going to be more than a sentence or two.

Does that make sense? ♥ kine @ 07:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It would also be in keeping with my desire to have battle names omit the "starzone" bit because of its inconsistency. Canary 19:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am still not sure i agree with that particular decision (and i'm not sure how it's related to this one) but let's discuss that separately! For now i will rename the star articles as discussed, moving this to resolved ♥ kine @ 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Only the most recent resolved issues are listed on this page; for previous discussions, please see the Policy talk archive page.

Gineipaedia talk:Policy

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

Latest revision as of 19:37, 20 October 2013

Contents

Unresolved issues

2012/12/29 — Captcha?

2011/12/15 — Unnamed topics

2011/12/11 — Structure of appendices/apocrypha sections

2011/10/01 — Chinese names for Chinese characters

2011/07/06 — Reorganization

2011/06/23 — Counting appearances

2011/04/15 — Article Tense

2011/05/12 — Topics specific to novels/manga

2011/05/08 — Surname Determination

2011/04/24 — Official/canon name spellings

Resolved issues

2011/05/14 — Italicising titles

2011/05/14 — Stars and starzones: separate or combined?

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Miscellany

Common

Tool box

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Unresolved issues==
+This page contains discussions on Gineipaedia '''policy''' matters. Any contributor may raise new points or respond to existing ones, but our goal is consensus, not democracy. Please bear this in mind.
-There are several undecided policy issues that we need to clear up. For many of these, [[User:Canary|Canary]] and i ([[User:kine|kine]]) have differing opinions, and for others we're simply uncertain. If our fellow contributors would register their own opinions here, that would help us a make a final determination.
-<!--
+Only the most recent resolved issues are listed on this page; for previous discussions, please see the [[Project talk:Policy/archive|Policy talk archive]] page. '''Note:''' Please start a new thread if you would like to re-open discussion on a resolved matter.
-KEEP THIS SPACE HERE FOR EASIER EDITING
+==Unresolved issues==
-(BEGIN POSITION OF LICENSED WORKS IN CANON)
+===2012/12/29 — Captcha?===
+''This issue was originally raised at [[Project talk:Staff|Gineipaedia talk:Staff]].''
--->
+Given the increasing frequency of bots, I have been wondering whether we need Captcha to block these accounts from being created.  Opinions? [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 10:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
-===2011/04/28 — Position of licensed works in canon===
+:There actually are captchas on both account creation and the first few page edits. The captchas ask questions that are simple enough for a human to answer, but difficult enough that a bot shouldn't be able to. Some of the questions include 'What is the third letter in the name of this wiki?' and 'Generally speaking, which season comes before autumn?'
-[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] and i ([[User:kine|kine]]) were discussing the place licensed works — Fleet File information in particular — might have in our canon. On LOGH Wiki — and until now on [[Policy:Canon|Gineipaedia]] — we had considered licensed works to be non-canon, and information from them could only be included in Background information and/or Apocrypha sections. However, there is a possibility that we could change this.
-'''Points in favour of an apocryphal status for all licensed works:'''
+:I had had a more conventional captcha before this, but it had almost no effect, because bots are just too smart now. When i settled on this one, the amount of spam and fake accounts reduced to almost zero. I'm not sure why there are so many more now. (Initially my assumption was that these accounts are not in fact being created by bots at all, but rather by people in India or somewhere like that who get paid a few pennies to spam Web sites. However, i actually have no idea.)
-*Consistent with our position on other non-animated sources — currently, only animated works are considered primary canon. If we allow some specific licensed works in the main article text, then the obvious question is, why only those?
+:I guess what i could do is make the questions more complicated. That would probably foil both bots and the type of poor English-speakers who get paid to do similar jobs. I had just been weary of making them ''too'' complicated, because i didn't want to scare away prospective users. But i dunno <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 05:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
-*Avoids the need to determine which specific sources, and which specific data from them, to allow. For example, should we allow historical information (like ship launch dates) from licensed sources, even if there's nothing in the animated sources to support it? If not, why the distinction?
+::If we could reduce the ever increasing number of spam accounts I think it'd be worth it to make the questions a little harder.[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 07:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
-'''Points in favour of a canon or pseudo-canon status for certain licensed works:'''
+:::I'm all for some series specific question.  Like "What was the first name of the founder of the Galactic Empire?" or "What is the name of the state located between the Alliance and Empire?". Unless they actually knew relevant information then they would trip up.  [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 09:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
-*When it comes to vessels, information like physical dimensions is useful to have. If we don't allow licensed works, we'll have almost no 'canon' information on any of this.
+::::That seems unfair to people who are coming here to learn though. If they have to go digging through the site to find information they will probably just give up, and we have too few users to be OK with that :(
-*Allowing this information as canon would make it easier and simpler for us to clean up the many 'mechanical details' sections which are currently languishing at the bottom of our ship articles. If this information became canon, we could move it all to a 'Design' section (or whatever) in the body, and we could also incorporate it into ship infoboxes whenever we get those.
+::::I will probably stick with basic knowledge, but word them in a way that requires a near-native level of English to answer <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 20:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
-Please register your opinion by replying below this line!
+::::OK, i've made them more complicated. If you use another browser, or log out of the site in the one you're using, you can see the questions here:
-:I would say that we follow the policy of "so long as it doesn't contradict anything from the logh OVAs, it's canon." I think this is similar to how Star Wars fans handle tertiary information--they consider in canon until it's contradicted by primary information. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::[http://gineipaedia.com/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup&returnto=Portal:Main Log in / create account]
-::Star Wars' canon policy is something I hadn't really considered. Though for Star Wars it can be something of a farce given there's reams of contradictory information, LOGH doesn't really contradict itself ever, AFAIK, so this could be quite workable. As I said, I'm not keen on the idea of referring to stuff in say, the fleet files, as 'apocrypha' - official / licensed material would be better, and I think we can assume its valid unless we have evidence from the OVAs (or MCISS or ONW or the Gaiden) to the contrary? [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::(The questions will not appear if you stay logged in, because your accounts have already been confirmed.)
-:::So wait, just to be clear, are you guys advocating that we include ''anything'' that doesn't contradict the OVA? Every single licensed work is canon and can therefore be added to the article body? What about licensed video games? Or are we drawing the line at books and models? If so, why? What makes a model more canon than something else? And do we know for ''certain'' that none of these licensed things contradict each other? What happens if they some day do? Creating a new animated work is a huge investment and requires the appreciation of 'core' fans to succeed, but anybody can churn out books and toys — this is a significantly reduced barrier to entry into our canon.
+::::We'll see what happens with it, i guess <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 21:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
-:::(And what about novels? Currently we consider these apocrypha, and this was decided on LOGH Wiki because not many English fans, contributors and readers alike, have access to them. Are we going to allow licensed works but not the novels? Or if we're going to allow the novels, then what? What happens if a novel doesn't ''directly'' contradict something in the OVA, but it introduces a back-story or motivation that people who are only familiar with the OVA won't understand? How will readers react? Is this making our wiki more accessible to readers and editors, or is it introducing a barrier for them as well?)
+:::::I know it is early but it seems to be working.  The mass registration of new spam accounts seems to have fallen off and now it seems to be just the old ones becoming active and being banned.  [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 13:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
-:::So are we ''sure'' we want to go down this path? I can still be convinced, but these are pretty important questions that we have to ask ourselves, and we need to have logical and consistent reasons for everything we do. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 15:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::::Whatever benefit we gained seems to have worn off, with the recent spate of daily new spam account creations. Maybe time to upgrade the questions? [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 11:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
-::::I won't presume to speak for Canary, but my attitude is that the information from certain licensed material need not be intergrated into the 'primary' part of the entry - but it should be treated/acknowledged as 'correct' unless we have reason to assume otherwise by reference to the OVAs/movies. In so far as novels and video games are concerned, I just don't think we need to think about this- at this stage. The only reason the miniature models are even an issue is because I (and others, no doubt) have them all and they clearly indicate what the dimensions of the various ships are, for example. After all, the users of this wiki will be English speaking fans, and the overwhelming majority of said fans will only be familiar with the animated series fansub - I don't foresee hordes of people coming in and adding ... I don't know what. But in terms of this being a barrier, I think it serves instead as an advantage. Ships example again - the average viewer of the anime has no idea how big the ships are. He decides to google it. Up comes the wiki. Up comes the dimensions. His curiosity is sated! Btw, this is '''exactly''' how I found the original wiki - and look at me now :)
+::::::With almost daily multiple spam account creations, I think we need to upgrade the questions to be more specific and less general knowledge. [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 04:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
-::::Basically, we shouldn't try and build Rome in a day and try and anticipate problems that may never even arise. I think the more information the wiki has, about everything - the better. We can always change our minds down the line. [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 16:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::::::I agree with Iracundus on this. Their near-daily appearances are cluttering up the recent activities section, which do not look nice at all. =( [[User:Glacierfairy|Glacierfairy]] 13:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
-::::A further thought - the Galaxy-class entry on Memory Alpha:- http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class - it has a specific section in 'Appendices' for the Technical Manual, which lists the ships 'vital statistics'. That approach could work, or simply a citation code for the fleet files to be used on the Mechanical Details, or whatever. [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 16:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:(Resetting indentation)
-:::::Oh, i'm absolutely not opposing the ''inclusion'' of this information (or ''any'' information from secondary/licensed works — i am 100% behind including ship dimensions, novel information, game information, and so on); i'm just questioning how we should handle it.
+:Alright, i've made a few changes, but not to the captcha itself. I think that might be as good as it'll get. What i've done instead is:
-:::::If you don't think it needs to be included in the main article body, then that eliminates 90% of my concern right away. :) So let me make sure i understand the rest of where you're coming from here: You've mentioned that you dislike the term 'apocrypha' — is that the crux of your issue? For example, if we changed that section to something like 'Other media', would that satisfy your concerns? Or is it something more fundamental than that?
+:1. New users are now required to confirm their e-mail addresses before they can create or edit pages. (In other words, they can create their account and log in, but they can't do anything else until they check their e-mail and click the link they were sent.)
-:::::'''Edit:''' Responding to your Galaxy-class example — that is definitely acceptable to me, and sort of how i had envisioned it actually. What would you prefer? Should we do something like Appendices > Background information > Fleet File ? <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:2. Auto-confirmation (the event that occurs when you become a 'real' user) delay has been increased from 4 hours to 12 hours.
-::::::Oh sorry I didn't see your last comment before I posted that re: memory-alpha. That (your suggestion re Appendices/background/fleet file etc) would work for me, actually. It's a bit hypothetical at the moment, since the fleet file booklets are untranslated - but we do know for most of the ships length, height, width, and crew numbers. But its a start. What does Canary think? In terms of the 'apocrypha' issue, yeah my concern was basically I didn't like the potential implication that the relevant numbers were somehow dubious or not reliable. We should only dismiss them if the OVA tells us different. [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 16:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:3. New user registrations are now subject to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL DNSBL] check. This means that their IP address is checked against a list (several lists, actually) of known spammers, open proxies, bot networks, and so on; if the IP is found on the list, the registration is denied.
-:::::::First thing's first: we need a clear definition of apocrypha. What all does it include? Narrative elements only? (X ship was launched on X day?) That works for me. I do not think it's necessary to deem ship dimensions as apocryphal, unless we come across 2 officially licensed sources that contradict. I think this mostly because I do not want to see the appendices portion of any page have more content than the page itself. That is, somehow, wrong. I think the best thing to do re: ships would be to keep the basic format the same, and cite the Fleet File collection where the information came from. Good thing we have that merchandise section, huh, kine? We can handle contradictory information on a case-by-case basis. I don't think that will be an issue however: when the logh project first started and that anon gave me those dimensions and brief descriptions, I double-checked the info with a random logh fansite (which is where I got those sprites. If we can find that site again, we REALLY need to ask for permission. I don't know how strong either of your Japanese is, but I might be able to write up a (very) crude message). I also double-checked my Fleet File booklets where applicable, and found only 1 or two inconsistencies (where it was obvious which one was correct or not simply by looking at the ship).
+:I've just tested a new registration and this seems to be working as expected. I'm very hopeful that it'll make a big difference, but we'll see i guess. Let me know if you have any questions/whatever. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 22:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::Considering the OVAs don't really tell us anything about ship specifications, we don't have to worry about being contradicted by the OVAs. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 17:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+::Unfortunately it looks like the daily spam account creation is getting out of hand. Iracundus is being very vigilant in banning these things, but it looks like they can easily get past the captcha (although due to measures taken it seems unlikely they can post). [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 02:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
-::::::::Re 'apocrypha': My definition of apocrypha is ''anything'' that is mentioned in some other media than the animated series (plus anything mentioned in the animated series that is overridden by ONW or whatever). That means novels, manga, games, licensed books, models, &c. That is of course not to suggest that those are 'wrong' or that there is a 'superior' way to look at the universe of LOGH; it's just a distinction that needs to be made in order to focus our efforts and prevent reader confusion. (IOW, like i hinted earlier, 'Apocrypha' means almost exactly the same thing as 'Other [non-animated] media'.)
+:::So far only 1 has actually managed to post anything (and tried to move it from user talk to a page of its own). However I do worry that one of these days there might be a genuine new person mixed in there that gets accidentally banned. [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 11:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
-::::::::As far as the rest, like i said, i'm not opposed to it being included there. I just want to differentiate the two – information explicitly mentioned in the animated series versus information mentioned elsewhere. Given that (and the fact that you agree the format should be kept the same), what do you think the best solution is as far as placement of that section? Do you just want to keep 'Mechanical details' but put it ''above'' the Appendices section? (This still grates against my desire to keep things separate, but it is a compromise i could live with.) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::Yeah, just have to look at the names closely. So far all of them have "spambot" written all over them. [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 12:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::::I see no reason to change anything: the key point would be to have the information cited. If we decide that only animated material is canon, and that everything else is apocryphal, we'll be digging ourselves into a hole in the long run. The thing is, we don't know whether the information is apocryphal or not--we're just assuming. The logh animators were very, very good, and very, very consistent. Wright Staff also put a lot of work into the authenticity and accuracy of their product. Therefore, I think we're safe in assuming that their information is accurate.
+:::Is there anything else we can do about these spam accounts? Blocking 7-19 accounts per day every day is getting tiring. [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 22:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::::My opinion is basically the same as my opinion regarding different OVA series: Newer supersedes older; any information is considered accurate unless it is contradicted by something superior. Looking at Memory Alpha's 1701-E page, they've got technical information there that wasn't stated in any series or movie (weapons + dimensions) so I think we're okay. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::Agreed. Perhaps we can try the more stringent measures that were put in place for a while a few months ago? [[User:Glacierfairy|Glacierfairy]] 22:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
-::::::::::The thing about Star Trek is that there's HEAPS of information about the ships in the various displays that appear on-screen, and MA people are meticulous about documenting all of this. I can't say for certain whether that's where the weapon/size information on the Enterprise-E article came from, but MA's general [http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Memory_Alpha:Canon_policy#Valid_resources policy on technical manuals] is that information from them should only be referenced in background sections.
+::::Or the more full proof method would be manual account creation only and for people to post a forum post requesting it.  [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 10:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
-::::::::::All of that said: If we want to keep 'Mechanical details' where it is, and cite it, that's OK. I will come up with a citation format for Fleet Files later (not sure if we just want to spell it out, or if we want an actual template like the series). <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 19:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::::Its pretty out of control. I think anyone who really wants to edit will jump through as many hoops as necessary. Currently its just a spamfest and its obscene. [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 14:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::::::I think I've mentioned this elsewhere(?!?) but I'm not really happy with the current format for mechanical details. Ideally, I think just need a table, maybe something similar to the one used w/ character pages. Probably with the same placement. I would also like to remove all of the sprites from those pages, and instead compile all of the FPA sprites and GE sprites in two separate images, one for each page ([[Imperial ships]] and [[FPA ships]]) as something like a "size comparison chart." Each ship would need a label, of course. I say this for three reasons:
+:::::Can we please implement those blacklists again or go straight to manual account creation only via a forum request?  I did a quick count and I have blocked something like 105 in the past 7 days. This is getting beyond tiring and ridiculous.  [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::::::1) If we are asked to remove the sprites, it's much easier to delete two than twenty, and the damage to the layout of the pages will be minimal
+:(Resetting again)
-:::::::::::2) We have far fewer sprites than screenshots, so if we stick to screenshots we get a more cohesive layout.
-:::::::::::3) Some of the sprites are just way, way too small and look ridiculous on the page. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 01:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
-:::::::::::: On balance, I think Canary's right. And you probably haven't seen my post on the forum, but I did find that Japanese fan site with *all* the sprites. Here you go:- http://www.geocities.jp/izelone0079/
+:First of all, i don't think it's necessary to block them unless they've actually added spam to an article. Wikis get loads of registrations every day, it's not feasible (as you've found) to manually vet each one for potential spamminess.
-::::::::::::So yeah - I say lets work towards getting rid of the sprites, and moving the ship details into a box like with the character names?[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 02:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::That seems fair. I will start working on an infobox template for the ships (in addition to some method of citing Fleet Files), probably tomorrow or the next day. In the mean time, just leave the mechanical-details section where it is. (Considering this semi-resolved, pending completion of the aforementioned) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 03:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
+:That said, i will look at it again, probably this week end. Maybe the block lists will work better now that the server has more RAM. Please remind me next week if i forget :/ <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 14:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
-<!--
+::OK, i've re-enabled all of the block lists i'd disabled, and i've also added a few (not a lot) of LOGH-specific captcha questions. We'll see what happens. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 03:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
-KEEP THIS SPACE HERE FOR EASIER EDITING
+:::Thanks kine! [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 12:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
-(BEGIN OFFICIAL/CANON NAME SPELLINGS)
--->
+::::Doesn't look like it's made a lot of difference. I'll look at it again in a bit. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 02:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
-===2011/04/24 — Official/canon name spellings===
+:::::Sorry for the delay. I've made an additional change — the server will now ban your IP for a while if you refresh the sign-up page more than a few times within a certain time period. I decided on this based on analysing the log entries from some of our spammers — i found that they frequently reload that page (presumably to get a favourable captcha question).
-We are undecided as to what name spellings should be considered canon for the purposes of Gineipaedia.
-:My position is that we should generally follow a newest-first policy — making the official DVD subtitles (seen on the Nemesis rips, ''not'' the CA ones) the current top-priority source for the spelling of names. However, we would also want to be able to override that policy when the DVD names fail us. An example that i frequently cite is Dusty, who is called 'Dusty Attemborough' by the DVDs. In his case i would like us to be able to use the more correct LD name (Attenborough). Otherwise, the DVD names are generally more accurate (i.e., 'true to life') than the LD ones — ''Maurya'' vs ''Mauria'', ''Sithole'' vs ''Sitolet'', ''Schönkopf'' vs ''Schenkopp'', and so on.
+:::::I honestly have no idea how effective this will be, so let's see what happens before making any other changes. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 21:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
-:Whatever we decide on, we are going to have a list of common alternative names at the bottom of each article, so they will eventually all be listed ''somewhere'' on the site. The only question is, what do we use ''officially'' — how do we spell the article titles, how do we spell the names in body text, &c. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::::Well, the good news is that it's been fantastic at banning spammer IPs. There've been over 300 bans since i enabled it. The bad news is that, because it has to read the server logs to see what's going on, there is a slight delay, and (as you can see) a lot of the time the sign-up goes through right before the IP actually gets banned.
-::A couple of points. First, I think that every name spelling should be sourced for each article. There are a number of articles I see with weird names that just leave me thinking "huh?" because it's so unfamiliar. Secondly, the "Official DVD subtitles" are several generations out-of-date. Neither the remastered DVDs nor the Blu-Ray releases of LoGH use any name-plates at all, so I don't think it's wise to lock ourselves onto so old a standard. Given that these plates were intentionally removed by the producers, I believe they're worth ignoring. (Generally speaking, our "order of reliability" goes BluRay, then Remaster, then DVDs, then Laserdisc). Third: at the very least, the various spellings used by CA for all of their fansub versions (3, I believe) should be included as "alternate spellings" and have redirects. Fourth and finally,  no matter what we decide on the "official" spelling we will need to note (and remember) that whatever we decide on will only be a TEMPORARY 'official' determination, pending a possible, officially-licensed translation of either the logh ovas, or novels.--[[User:Canary|Canary]]
+::::::This is a definitely an improvement over before, but it doesn't solve the issue someone mentioned of it looking bad for us if our recent changes are just filled with spam account creations.
-:::My response to Canary's points above:
+::::::I will add some more LOGH-specific questions, that will probably make them reload more and catch them sooner. Aside from that, i'll have to think on it. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 04:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
-:::I am not opposed to sourcing names. How would you recommend we do so? Maybe repurpose 'Alternative names' so that it lists all of them instead?
+:::::::Cool, thanks for update. In meantime I've gotta do more contribs. [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 11:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
-:::Where does your claim that the official DVD subtitles are out of date come from? I know that the remaster and Blu-ray ''rips'' that have been released don't include subtitles, but that doesn't mean anything, it's just a decision that the release groups made. Perhaps we should ask someone from CentralAnime (who presumably own the DVDs/BDs) if they are included on the original discs? Or do you have a source?
+:(Resetting again)
-:::Even if the new releases don't have subtitles, how else would we decide what to go with? The only evidence we have of 'officialness' either way when it comes to names is the fact that the official LOGH Web site uses the same names (with the exception of Dusty) as the ones on the DVD. That suggests to me that they are more accurate than not.
+:I was looking at the logs and i noticed there are several hosts that are repeat offenders. They are getting banned (one guy has been banned over 50 times just in the last week), but they keep coming back and coming back and coming back, and eventually they probably get through.
-:::Regarding redirects and citations from other name variations, i absolutely agree 100%
+:So my next step is this: I've added one more thing that blocks repeat offenders for a very long time (months). It looks like so far these people have only been about 10% of our bans, but it's something at least. The guy with 50 bans has created at least two accounts.
-:::Regarding a future English translation, i agree that they would take precedent. I can add a note about this to the policy pages. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 19:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
+:On that note, i've added a new tool that you guys might find useful, if only to play with. You can find it at [[Special:CheckUser]]; it allows you to search by user for all associated IPs and to search by IP for all associated users. There's not a ton you can do just with that information, but if you're ever looking at it and find a particularly bad offender, you can let me know.
-::::I've discussed the issue of missing name plates with heibi on the Central Anime forum in the recent past - they are indeed still on the DVDs (and presumably blu-ray rips), but they don't carry over automatically, so they're forced to put them back in manually. I agree that names should be sourced (perhaps in the alternative names section?) and in terms of ship names especially, maybe a little blurb as far as the "real" English name and what it actually means (i.e. "Garga Falmul" means nothing but "Galga Farmr" definitely means something, and is amusingly appropriate to Lennenkampt (kampf's?) final fate.)[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
+:Lastly, i'm going to look into adding a forced wait to the sign-up page, in order to address the log-reading delay i mentioned above. Since you only need to sign up once, it shouldn't be too big of an inconvenience. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 04:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
-:::::Thanks for confirming the name-sub thing, that's really helpful. What's your opinion on which names we should choose as 'official'? Do you agree with using whatever's the most common, or do you prefer going with whatever the newest available is (with or without a 'Dusty Clause')?
+:edit: Just added a wait to the log-in page. It was easy. I'm not sure how long the log-reading delay is, but i guess we'll see. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 04:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
-:::::Also, as far as citing names, what do you reckon the format for that should be? Some of the episode titles can get quite long, so if we use the full episode citations, plus which release (LD/DVD/BD), those one-line citations we have can start turning into two- or three-line citations. Is that OK? Or should we have a names-specific abbreviated citation format?
+::The new measures seem to have reduced but not stopped the number of spam account creations, and I seem to be still seeing about 6 to 7 per day.  Rather than all these countermeasure attempts (which they seem to evade or work around anyway), why not just go to manual account creation only via a forum request?  That way all the automated spammers should not get anywhere, and even human sweatshop spammers would have to be able to convince staff via forum posts.  I would think this would be the more definitive solution as I don't think the human spammers would be able to go on for any length of time on genuine LOGH related topics.  [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 06:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
-:::::Lastly, what's a good name for this new combined names section? Maybe 'Name variations'? What do you think? <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 01:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::I can do that if that's what you guys really want, but i want to be absolutely clear here: If i do, our legitimate sign-up rate will drop from ''almost'' nothing to ''actual'' nothing. Aside from the fact that that forum gets checked maybe twice a year, i can guarantee, with some knowledge of conversion optimisation and my own personal experience, that almost nobody will be willing to go through those hoops for a site like this.
-::::::Hmmmm. I'm not too up on all the differences so its hard for me to have an opinion on what names should be 'official'. As far as combined names section, I'd say 'Name variations' is perfectly fine.[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 06:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::Please discuss amongst yourselves whether you'd really like to keep that option on the table.
-:::::::Oh. Hum. We are at impasse then — as far as canon-ness anyway. I will have the bot replace 'alternative names' with 'name variations' now though. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::Until then, if that ''is'' on the table anyway, i would like to see what 100% LOGH-based captchas would do. I'm still hesitant about that, but it'd certainly be preferable to the nuclear option. I'll make that change now. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 01:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
-::::::::Please include whichever name is used for the page's title with the name variations. EVERY name should be included. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 00:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::In my opinion, people who are dedicated enough to create an account to contribute are most likely fans who already have a fair amount of knowledge about LoGH, so converting to 100% LOGH-based captchas should not have a detrimental effect on legitimate account creation. Otherwise, if the cluttering continues, I would also be tempted to support manual approval of account creations. [[User:Glacierfairy|Glacierfairy]] 04:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
-::::::::::Yeah, that's how we'll do it. I don't think the bot can do that for us, but i did have it replace 'Alternative names' by 'Name variations'. (I also had it add 'Appendices' to most of the articles that didn't have it — but there will be some left that have weird formatting. We'll have to get those by hand. But that's... not actually relevant to this conversation...) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::The spams seemed to have dropped off.  Is it the LOGH captchas blocking them? [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 03:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Ok, having looked at the Nemesis rips, I was interested to see a few of the ship names were a lot closer to what (Japanese) fandom tells us they should be in English than the LD rips (and by extension CA's DVD rips). Of course, some were still just as weird as the original LD names. I imagine the same goes for various character names. I think I agree with Kine in that we should go from the DVDs rather than the LDs. For example (and I apologise that my focus is on ships so much but I'm just that way inclined) take the 3rd Fleet flagship. The LD rip says its "Ku Horin", the DVD rip says "Cu Chulainn". One of these names actually means something. Winner is Cu Chulainn. Same with the 8th Fleet flagship - LD rip says Kulishuna, DVD rip says Krishna. Krishna wins. Mittermyer's ship? Its IIRC "Beiowolf" in the LD rip, "Beowulf" on the DVD. Beowulf just massively wins. Also IIRC the DVD rip takes care to include omlauts (is that you spell it) in the German names, which I think is pretty important. I believe this lends credibility to the DVD rip name plates as being both a: newer and b: having a tendency to be more accurate. However, I think the variation is such that case-by-case analysis is still required - sometimes it clear that both the LD and DVD just got the names wrong, and we have to choose. Dusty is a serviceable example of when you need to look at something case by case.[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 11:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::::Yeah. They're all LOGH-based now, so they keep reloading them trying to find one they'll be able to answer and they get banned. The number of repeat sign-up bans (the several-month ones) has increased dramatically.
-::::::::::::I think you have encapsulated my feelings pretty well. And, just to clarify, we would only be using the original/Nemesis DVDs because it's all we have at this particular moment. By default, the newest should win, so that would mean that whenever we do manage to get access to the official name subtitles from the remasters and/or Blu-rays, those would take precedent. But as it is, all we have are the original DVDs and the LDs (Heibi2 from CA has confirmed that he uses the LD names for all of the CA remaster rips). <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::::I have no idea how long it'll last though. Usually these things happen in cycles; you update the questions, they fail for a while, and then eventually they get a rhythm going again after they figure some of them out. It's just a question of whether they'll run out of IPs before that happens. Here's hoping i guess. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 19:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::Oh! This will perhaps shed some more light on the situation: I've asked Heibi2 about the names ([http://www.centralanime.net/bboard/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=353 see here]) and he's confirmed two things: (1) The names he uses in the CA DVD rips are the LD names, because he prefers them over the newer ones, and (2) the physical remaster DVDs have the same names as the Web site, and therefore presumably the same as the original DVDs. So that should hopefully address any concerns of outdated-ness. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 06:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
+===2011/12/15 — Unnamed topics===
+How should we deal with topics that aren't given names anywhere in the series (anime or otherwise)?
-::::::::::::::The obvious issue being the official website only has a handful of names. If we can get our hands on the tiles for the Remaster or BDs somewhere down the line, that would be ideal. Granted, at the end of the day, we'll still be accepting engrish in lieu of an official romanization. As such, it may be best simply not to have any "canon" name spelling, and just make all the versions of a given name "accepted", with page title spelling following the order of most-recent romanization (BD>RM>DVD>LD). It may be that logh will never see a licensed English translation, but until that day, I think we can't really call anything 'official' without making uncomfortable presumptions. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 03:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+There are a few types of unnamed topics that are easy to deal with. For example, if a character has his own ship, we'll just call it ''<character>'s ship'' (see [[Yang Tai-long's ship]]). Or if the ship has a pennant number, we can refer to it by that (see [[GL-202]]). For the star that anchors a starzone, we just base it on that (e.g. [[Aldebaran (star)]]). If a battle occurs in a particular place, we name the battle after that (there are a few pre-[[Battle of Amritsar Starzone|Amritsar]] battles like this)
-:::::::::::::::Oh, naturally we would not mean to imply that our 'canon' is in any way endorsed by the franchise. I can make this clear on the policy pages at some point — any unqualified use of the term 'canon' is specific to this Web site only and can be superseded at any time by a 'higher power'. Any unqualified use of 'official' simply means that it was produced directly by the franchise's owners/producers (as opposed to fan subs or anything else).
+However, there are some that are not as easy, and the wording gets more awkward. Here are a few examples of what i mean:
-:::::::::::::::If you are happy with a newest-first policy, that resolves 90% of this question. The only other question is, should we have a Dusty Clause? Since we don't have access to the 'official' subtitles for the BDs or remaster DVDs, we have no way of knowing if they've fixed his name in the newer versions. What do we do about it in the mean time? (Same question for any other name that appears 'wrong' in the original DVD subtitles.) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+*[[Alex Cazerne]]'s younger daughter
+*The moustachioed guy who appears with [[Romsky]] on a few occasions
+*The dark-haired guy who appears with [[Rockwell]] on a few occasions
+*The kid who appears with [[Fahrenheit]] before he dies (he doesn't have a name, right?)
+*The female repair-crew person who works on [[Poplin]]'s Spartanian in 015
+*The satellite of [[Lesing]] that the ''[[Cu Chulainn]]'' crashes into
+*The river that runs through [[Heinessenpolis]]
-::::::::::::::::It would be nice if we could gain access to the BD or even remaster subs. Oh well. Re: wrong names... I would say we don't change things. As per our earlier discussion, when it comes to names in particular, we have no way of knowing how the spelling and pronunciation may have evolved in Tanaka's history. Of course, by not changing incorrect names, we're assuming that any and all incorrect spellings are intential, similar to 'Hari' instead of 'Harry' in Asimov's famous novels. That said, Asimov made a habit of playing with language like that, whereas Tanaka (seems) to be going for an "exotic" flair to the names be incorporating lots of German and bits of English and Chinese. So, basically, I don't know. We can go with the incorrect names and include the 'real' spelling in the appendices; we can change the name to what we think it should be; or we can handle this on a case by case basis and go with whatever sounds best. Or we can follow CA's chosen name because it's the one our fanbase is likely to be most familiar with. At the moment, I have no strong opinion any way. So... congratulations, Vympel, it's up to you! [[User:Canary|Canary]] 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+Memory Alpha's usage more or less coincides with the examples i gave at the top of this post whenever possible — e.g., [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Sisko%27s_attack_ship Sisko's attack ship], [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Irina%27s_ship Irina's ship], [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/NCC-73918 NCC-73918], [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cardassian_sun Cardassian sun].
-<!--
+However, they also make heavy usage of ''Unnamed <whatever>'' lists, such as [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Unnamed_Ferengi Unnamed Ferengi], [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Unnamed_USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701%29_personnel Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel], [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Unnamed_Type_6_shuttlecraft Unnamed Type 6 shuttlecraft], [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Unnamed_moons Unnamed moons], and so on.
-KEEP THIS SPACE HERE FOR EASIER EDITING
+So should our rule maybe be something like this?
-(BEGIN DATE FORMATTING)
--->
+::If it is possible to attribute a unique and recognisable designation to an unnamed topic — e.g., [[Yang Tai-long's ship]] or [[GL-202]], an article should be created with this designation. Otherwise, it should be added to the relevant article(s) containing unnamed topics of its type (e.g., [[Unnamed moons]]).
-===2011/04/24 — Date formatting===
+In general i would go for that (in fact, see [[Unnamed Imperial citizens]]), but there are edge cases. For example, we could say ''Alex Cazerne's younger daughter'' (or ''Younger Cazerne daughter'', to be less biassed) is a unique designation that most people would recognise, but that is a pretty awkward phrase. At the same time, that character appears in many episodes and even speaks one or two lines, so i feel like she deserves her own article....
-We have also had a disagreement regarding date formats. Currently, we use dates according to the following patterns:
-CE<br />
+I was trying to find a similar example on Memory Alpha, but almost all of the recurring characters are either given on-screen names eventually (like [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Morn Morn]) or they are given names behind the scenes (like [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Youngblood Youngblood]).
-U.C.796<br />
-R.C.487<br />
-N.R.C.1
-:The formatting of the CE dates is not the same as the in-series dates. I would prefer that we make these all the same, by removing the punctuation from the in-series dates and putting them in the back; for example, ''796 UC''. Also: the term 'RC' (and by extension 'NRC') has a questionable and potentially nonsensical meaning — presumably it stands for something like 'Reich Calendar', which is a mixture of German and English. I would prefer that we use 'IC' and 'NIC'; for example, ''487 IC''.--[[User:Canary|Canary]]
+Hum. Complicated <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 19:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
-::The date formats we use are appropriate if we assume that their common usage is the most correct one. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#Grammar Wikipedia] says that 'CE' always follows the date (unlike 'AD') and implies that it is usually un-punctuated. Meanwhile, all official and unofficial LOGH sources use U.C./R.C./N.R.C. in the way that they appear above — in front of the date, punctuated, and without a space.
+===2011/12/11 — Structure of appendices/apocrypha sections===
+''This issue was originally raised at [[User talk:kine]].''
-::We don't actually ''know'' what 'RC' stands for. There is some likelihood that it's either 'Reich Calendar' or 'Reich Century', but they never outright state this to my knowledge.
+I like the idea of keeping all the FFC stuff together in its own section, however more and more I'm thinking the "Apocrypha" sub-heading just serves no purpose. We see this in how some ship articles don't use the title at all. Did a test edit of Airget lamh on that basis to show what I mean. [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 15:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
-::As has been correctly argued in the past, we do not have the ability to determine what the author's or producers' intentions were. We can't say for sure that 'RC' and whatever it stands for aren't 100% correct according to 36th-century spelling rules. <span style="color: #bbb">♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
+:Hm. From your edit it doesn't seem like you're arguing that the heading serves no purpose, more that you want the heading there, but don't like the name 'Apocrypha'. Is that accurate?
-:::It's possible background information re:calendar exists somewhere in the encyclopedia. Do you have access to it? I'll try looking through it myself, but my Japanese isn't very good, so even if it's there, I may not be able to find it.  Regarding creative intentions, that is certainly a valid point (it's mine!) but I think we need to have a little bit of leeway. Right now, I'm thinking the best way to accommodate both sides of the argument be to have a "dating systems" page, or something like that (with "UC" and "Imperial Year" and the like all redirecting to it) that says something like...
+:If so, that's a discussion we've had a few times back and forth in several talk pages, and although i can understand that the term 'apocrypha' might be confusing or carry bad connotations for some people, my concern is that the alternatives don't fully apply to all of the things that 'apocrypha' does.
-:::IC stands for Imperial Calendar. In the OVAs it is symbolized with the characters "RC." It began in the year XXXX of the common era, when....
+:For example, you've got 'Licensed sources' there, and that fits right now, but then what happens when that article gets novel and manga sections? I don't think 'licensed sources' applies to those. So then you might say, OK, what about 'Other media'? That would fit for all of the above, but then what about instances like ''[[Asgrimm]]'' and ''[[Pergamonn]]'' where there are differences within the animation (either between OVA and films or between LD and DVD)? Those aren't 'other' media, they're the same.
-:::Something to make it clear that the dating system we use is synonymous with the systems in the OVAs, but not necessarily identical. That way, we can maintain consistency in terms of formatting, have the language necessary to talk about these eras instead of constantly abbreviating them, and at the same time accommodate the possible inaccuracy or alternate intentions of the OVA systems. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:'Apocrypha' covers all of those scenarios quite succinctly, which i think is the great thing about it and the main reason i'm attached to it. Is there another term you can think of that would satisfy all of those concerns? (Or am i misconstruing you entirely?) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 16:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
-::::Not sure what you mean by 'encyclopedia', so i'm not sure if i have access to it. The Japanese sources i do have seem to use the UC date system exclusively, so they don't even bother to write it in a Western format (they just use the normal kanji for 'year').
+:The tricky part is what happens when the background for a ship has integrated information from both the FFC and the Data Book encyclopaedia as some ships already do. [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 20:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
-::::As far as 'dating systems' pages, any description of how dates work on Gineipaedia itself belongs in a policy article (which is something i still need to create i think, regardless of how we decide). I also don't really consider that such a compromise. We could justify changing ''anything'' if all it takes to explain it away is throwing a page up pointing out the differences. :/
+::It is pretty tricky, i still am not 100% positive what the best way of doing that is. We could keep doing it the way it is, or we could do the same but just put it under 'Apocrypha', and those are i guess sufficient at the very least for readability. We could prohibit combining apocryphal data at all, but that's too drastic. We could also do a structure like this:
-::::And regarding consistency, i am not really understanding why it's even an issue. We will very very rarely mix date formats — the only examples i can think of would be the Timeline and yet-to-be-created dating system pages and maybe once or twice in the history sections of the Galactic Federation, FPA, and Empire pages. In every single other instance (thousands of pages), we're going to be using only UC or only CE, so the question of formatting consistency doesn't even come up. It only appears otherwise in the tool-tip jazz. Is this all enough to justify changing an existing and consistently used convention of the series?
+:::'''Appendices'''<br />・・・'''Apocrypha'''<br />・・・・・・'''Manga''' (or whatever)<br />・・・・・・''(text)''<br />・・・・・・'''Licensed sources'''<br />・・・・・・''(combined text)''<br />・・・・・・・・・'''Data Book'''<br />・・・・・・・・・''(source-specific text)''<br />・・・・・・・・・'''Fleet File Collection'''<br />・・・・・・・・・''(source-specific text)''
-::::Vympel you need to tie-break bro :( <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 03:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
+::That last option seems to me like the most logical in terms of structure, but (a) i'm not sure how it would work out if we ever needed to do something similar with manga/novel stuff and (b) it adds yet another level of depth to the Appendices section, which is already pretty deep hierarchy-wise. For now i guess just keep doing what we're doing though :/\/\ <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 21:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
-:::::Well, I ''have'' been dealing a whole helluva lot with the timeline recently. Regardless of the standard used by Japanese fan sites/resources, I think there are serious issues with using UC as the standard/default dating system. Why? Because it's inconsistent. It was not used at all for several centuries preceding the OVAs, and once the Neue Reich pops up... they're pretty much in charge, so it's safe to assume that UC will, once again, fall out of use. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 03:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::The danger is simply listing everything out by source risks creating an incoherent narrative, given how background information is broken up and scattered everywhere.  For example, take the ''Leda II'' entry, the FFC gives some information about the frontal cannons but does not name them as neutron beam cannons, which is done by the Data Book.  The Data Book gives information about the secondary guns near the bridge as electron beam cannons but it is the FFC that says they are low calibre rapid fire versions.  Both sources end up often filling in each other's holes.  If we just listed everything, we end up with an article that is just a long listing of one line facts instead of something readable.  I admit I am for integration where possible of these two sources (with citation), simply because ultimately it was Wright Staff that was involved in both.  [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 21:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
-::::::Well what's the alternative? If we use CE dates, nobody is going to know what we're talking about and they'll have to look shit up every single time they come across a date. Even '''i''' don't know what the CE->UC correspondence is. And if we use any other date system, then we have the same problem that you mention, except even ''worse'' because none of them are as long-lived as UC. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 03:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::Right, i agree for the most part <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 21:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
-<!--
+:::::In terms of apocrypha / licensed sources etc, I think 'apocrypha' serves a purpose in terms of say, ONW/OVA appearance differences, or the Sindur's amazing changing crest, etc. But yeah, I think "other media" would work for novels and manga (we can hardly say they're apocrypha - within their own terms of reference they're cnot). Also Iracundus gives a persuasive argument for having a consistent narrative. I think he's right in the end. [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
+::::::Mm, so what are you proposing? Something like this?
+:::::::'''Appendices'''<br />・・・'''Background information''' (or whatever)<br />・・・''(text)''<br />・・・'''Apocrypha'''<br />・・・''(text about ONW/OVA differences or whatever)''<br />・・・'''Novel'''<br />・・・''(text about novel)''<br />・・・'''Manga'''<br />・・・''(text about manga)''<br />・・・'''Licensed sources'''<br />・・・''(combined text from all licensed sources)''<br />
-KEEP THIS SPACE HERE FOR EASIER EDITING
+::::::(Keep in mind that is probably a conservative structure in terms of how we would want the wiki to eventually look in the end — that's leaving out a handful of other licensed books [like the encyclopaedia], those non-FFC models, the 15 or so video games, the three or four pachinko games, the stage adaptation, the DVD features, the LaserDisc art books, ...) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 09:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
-(BEGIN RESOLVED ISSUES)
+:::::::Yeah, that looks like a good structure - how would we deal with the FFC section & picture thing we've got now? [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 10:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
+::::::::I don't know. I can't say i care for it personally. :/ It would pollute the main 'Appendices' section with dozens of sub-sections that can all logically be grouped into one and i think that the terminology is also inaccurate.
+::::::::The thing that complicates any solution is the desire to combine sources into a flowing narrative. I understand the desire and generally agree with it, but it definitely makes things difficult because it turns those two or three sources into a special case that doesn't apply to any other source.
--->
+::::::::I'm having difficulty trying to come up with something that would satisfy all requirements mainly because of that. I thought maybe with a change of terminology it might work well if we did something like the first structure i illustrated above (where combined text would go under 'Licensed sources' and then we could put source-specific stuff right under that), but the term 'Licensed sources' basically applies to every single secondary source ''except'' for novels and managa, so that'd be a pretty heavy section.
-==Resolved issues==
+::::::::On the other hand, perhaps we could do something like this (sorry for length)?
-<!--
+:::::::::'''Appendices'''<br />・・・'''Background information''' (or whatever)<br />・・・''(text)''<br />・・・'''Some other word for {{`}}apocrypha{{`}}'''<br />・・・・・・'''Animation differences'''<br />・・・・・・''(text about ONW/OVA differences or whatever)''<br />・・・・・・'''DVD features'''<br />・・・・・・''(text about DVD features)''<br />・・・・・・'''Alba Create sources'''<br />・・・・・・''(combined 'narrative' text from AC sources)''<br />・・・・・・・・・'''Data Book'''<br />・・・・・・・・・''(Data Book-specific text, if applicable)''<br />・・・・・・・・・'''Fleet File Collection'''<br />・・・・・・・・・''(FFC-specific text, if applicable)''<br />・・・・・・'''Novel'''<br />・・・・・・''(text about novel)''<br />・・・・・・'''Manga'''<br />・・・・・・''(text about manga)''<br />・・・・・・'''Video games''' (or whatever)<br />・・・・・・''(text)''
-KEEP THIS SPACE HERE FOR EASIER EDITING
+::::::::That would have the benefit of clustering all of the animation-derived sources (which are our 'main' sources obv) up together at the top, and limiting a section to 'Alba Create' would make that quite specific and avoid the difficulty of including other sources in something more generic like 'Licensed sources'. Then we could put everything else below in roughly descending order of relevance.
-(BEGIN BATTLE-NUMBERING POLICY)
--->
+::::::::Assuming you guys could go for that (?), the only trouble would be coming up with a good alternative to the word 'apocrypha'. Maybe 'Other depictions' or 'Alternative depictions' or something? <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 10:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
-===2011/04/28 — Battle-numbering policy===
+:::::::::Urkh. I just don't know to be honest. I find it hard to come up with a preference that doesn't conflict with a goal! :( [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 13:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
-{{resolved}}
-Basically, should it be "Third Battle of Tiamat" or "3rd Battle of Tiamat?" Which format should be standard?
+::::::::::Well let's see what the others say i guess. (Moving this to policy talk, btw, as you can see) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 15:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
-:I'm in favor of "3rd," that way the battles are better alphabetized in the tag index. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 15:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
+===2011/10/01 — Chinese names for Chinese characters===
+''This issue was originally raised at [[Talk:Yang Wen-li]].''
-:Agreed with Canary.[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 04:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+This with regards to those LOGH characters of clear Chinese descent with names in the 'Eastern' format.  Notable examples include Yang Wen-li, Lin Pao, Fang Tchewling, and Ulanhu.  For these characters, the original official Japanese DVDs have Chinese subtitles and dub.  Given the use of the anime in this wiki as higher canon, I move that these official Chinese subtitles be used as the names of these particular characters.  In the 3rd Battle of Tiamat Gaiden, we see Ulanhu with a pennant on his bridge with character 马, or horse.  This indicates the use of the Chinese character system is still existent at least in some form in the LOGH era, so this issue of the Chinese names isn't a completely irrelevant issue. [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]]
-::I prefer spelling it out, but since to my knowledge we never see these terms on-screen (we only hear them in dialogue) i have no argument other than preference. But it has to be consistent — if we are going to use the '3rd Battle of Tiamat' in the title of the article, we need to use '3rd Battle of Tiamat' ''every single time'' we mention this battle in any article. (Otherwise you are sort of implicitly saying that the title of the article is wrong.) If you think that's what we should do, then let's do it. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:Just to clarify in case anyone is too lazy to read the talk page this was started on: The question being asked here is whether characters of Chinese descent should have their Chinese names (taken from the official Chinese subtitles) included in the top bit of articles, like this —
-:::I prefer spelling it out as well, but by using numerals the pages are easier to index. I see no reason why we can't use 3rd and Third interchangeably, just as we use various German and English terms interchangeably. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 17:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+::'''Ulanhu''' (Japanese: '''ウランフ''', Chinese: '''伍蘭夫''') was a vice admiral and the commander of the FPA 10th Fleet.
-::::Well, before we continue along that line of discussion, would you be amenable to spelling them out if we can use that sort key method instead? For example, we could have all of the Tiamat battles under 'T' and then sort them first, second, third, &c. Would that be a solution that allows us to switch back to full words? <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:— or whether they should be limited to the ''Name variations'' section at the bottom of the articles.
-:::::That would be perfect. As I stated earlier, this is mostly about indexing the pages correctly. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 18:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:My gut feeling on this is to leave non-Japanese names to ''Name variations''. Firstly i worry about consistency of formatting, and secondly, in spite of the example given above, i can't recall any ''outright'' indication that these Chinese names are relevant to the non-Chinese-translated series.
-::::::Brilliant — i'm going to start doing that now. Will consider this issue resolved! <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 18:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:That said, i guess i don't feel all ''that'' strongly about it. I will go along with whatever the majority says on this <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 03:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
-<!--
+::"Ulanf" is a name of Mongolian origin not Chinese. The original japanese writing should precede all other languages and be listed because it's the original work. If we know how it's written in the specific language then that writing should be adopted as "correct translation". It's all about translation here. We are using the alphabet so the appropriate or general alphabet version should be used when translating from the various languages. [[User:Almael|Almael]] 19:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
-KEEP THIS SPACE HERE FOR EASIER EDITING
+:::Ulanhu is of Mongolian origin however the LOGH character Ulanhu has a pennant with a Chinese character on it.  Like the historical Ulanhu( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanhu), he can have an official Chinese transliteration/translation of his Mongolian name, much like how Yang Wen-li is a direct transliteration of Chinese characters.  [[User:Iracundus|Iracundus]] 00:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
-(BEGIN POSITION OF ONW IN CANNON)
--->
+===2011/07/06 — Reorganization===
+I've got a couple thoughts about the current structure of the wiki.
-===2011/04/27 — Position of ONW in canon===
+First: Vympel has done a great job with lots of information on ships and battles and fleets. But the problem is, that information is a bit hard to access. I would suggest removing individual ships from the technology category branches, and create a NEW category tree (under Culture, I guess) to put all fleets, individual ships, battles, etc. A "Military" category, or something like that, and place it on the side-bar, along with a few sub-categories like, Battles, Fleets, warships, etc. The "Armed Forces" pages would also belong here. This way all of this content would be more accessible.
-{{resolved}}
-Vympel had pointed out that some of the ships look different in ONW from how they appear in the OVA. This raises the question of what sort of position ONW should have in our canon. Our current policy (and the policy that existed on LOGH Wiki) is that the main OVA always trumps ONW when any conflicts arise. However, that does present sort of a dilemma because in most other matters we have a newest-first policy (which logically should make ONW take priority). So which one should we choose to have precedence?
+Second: Kind of a minor addition to the above, but I've been thinking more about the "Armed Forces" moniker. And the more I think on it, the less I like it. The wording sounds very, very clunky and awkward to me. Especially when we get to the [[Iserlohn Republic Armed Forces]]. "Iserlohn Fleet," "Alliance Fleet," and "Imperial Fleet" seem much more fluid to me, so perhaps we ought to revisit this. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 20:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
-:My my view is that ONW should take precedence over the OVA battle for Astarte for two reasons:-
+:I think that vessels should remain under the Technology category. However, there's no reason that the vessel categories themselves can't be added to some other Military category. The only problem for me is that it needs to be a logical hierarchy, the idea of having a web of things that are all arbitrarily connected makes me very nervous. Not that i am saying that's how it would have to be, just that we have to be careful in setting it up. I will think about it further
-:1. As the newer production, it should be considered to be 'retconning' the OVA at the points where the two differ (which can be significant in terms of plot points). In addition to the primary consideration of the much expanded and elaborated plot, I think its significant that the producers took the time to alter the Pergamon to look more distinctive, as well as showing us Merkatz' unique flagship (I'll add an entry for that in the near future) - when they could've just animated the old version ships all over again; and
-:2. As a movie length account of the same events (and their background), it is closer to the original novel's version of events in several key aspects - whilst this isn't really a 'canon' consideration it does lend the ONW account more credibility with me simply because its closest to the creator's original intent.
-:This probably goes without saying, but notwithstanding what we may decide on this, ONW sheds IMO significant background light on the events of Astarte that the OVA does not, so its account of the leadup to the battle should still be incorporated into any account of Astarte we do. Further, perhaps in the 'background information' section of the ships, we could note they look different in ONW/OVA?[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
+:Re the term 'Armed Forces', i agree actually. I dislike the term, particularly its use of capitalisation, which implies that it is the official name (and to my knowledge it's not). I know that i argued in some long-lost talk page that we should avoid calling them '____ Fleet', because naturally from a real-world perspective there must be people who aren't really in a fleet, but now that i've been rewatching the episodes where [[Rockwell]] is in charge of the military, i'm starting to wonder if i was wrong. Perhaps the entire Alliance military really '''is''' part of the fleet. If it is, then our Alliance military article should be called ''Free Planets Alliance Starfleet'', per the name used in the {{e|001}} subtitles and also on some of the characters' arm patches (Sithole's, maybe, i think)?
-::I agree absolutely on the two points in your last paragraph. Regardless of what we decide, anything that doesn't represent a conflict between the two (like the expanded roles of Lichtenlade and the three chiefs of staff) will be incorporated into canon. Any plot points that are superseded by the higher-priority release (ONW or OVA, whichever) will be added to the 'Apocrypha' section at the bottom.
+:Iserlohn Republic and El Facil both have clearly distinct names as i mentioned in the other talk page i've just posted to, so those are OK. That would only leave the Imperial military. I don't recall seeing an official name that could cover their whole organisation, but we'd have to double-check. Maybe the titles of the three chiefs of staff would help us <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
-::As far as the specific question at hand, your position makes sense, and i think it's similar to what Memory Alpha does. I'm leaning towards agreeing, but let's see what Canary says. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 04:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
+::I don't remember those titles as being very helpful, but I'd have to double check. Maybe the dictionary has something? Anyway, for the moment I'm thinking that it's probably safe to assume that all other military branches are PART of the fleet (for each nation) because in this sci-fi setting, every other branch of the military would be completely dependent on the fleet for communications, supplies, and transportation. Sort of like how the USAF was originally part of the US Army. That "Fleet" would just be a general synonym in-universe for "armed forces."
-:::I agree with Vympel 100%. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
+::The only HQs we ever see in the Empire, at least is the Fleet Headquarters on Odin. Given that Reinhard & Siegfried were in the Navy, yet were assigned to... Kapche Lanke(?) as... infantry? tank operators? ... anyway, it seems clear at least that for the Galactic Empire (and, therefore, the NGE as well) there's ONLY the "navy." [[User:Canary|Canary]] 00:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
-::::Alright, it's decided: ONW officially takes precedent over the OVA. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::Well, we see the Fezzan Ministry of War as well. But i distinctly remember the subtitles for those two being unhelpful, they are just ''Ministry of War'' in German and ''Ministry of Military Affairs'' in Japanese.
-<!--
+:::It did occur to me though that in the same episode where the subs show ''Free Planets Alliance Starfleet'', they also refer to the Imperial fleet as the ''Reichsflotte''. I'd have to double-check what the Japanese said, but our precedent so far has been to use the English equivalent of whatever the German subtitles say (which is why our articles are about the Ministry of War instead of the Ministry of Military Affairs), so if we go off that then naturally we should just call it ''Imperial Fleet'' <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 00:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
-KEEP THIS SPACE HERE FOR EASIER EDITING
+===2011/06/23 — Counting appearances===
-(BEGIN NAMING STANDARDS)
+Something i've been thinking about recently is how exact we want to be when counting appearances of things. If you directly see a person's face or an external shot of a building or ship or whatever, that's an easy matter. But what about less straight-forward situations, like the following:
--->
+*'''Internal shots''' — If a scene takes place on the bridge of a ship, or in a room inside of a particular building, does that count as an appearance of that ship/building?
-===2011/04/26 — Naming Standards===
+*'''Terrestrial shots''' — Do we count every single appearance of every single room and building on Odin as an appearance for Odin?
-{{resolved}}
-The names for Kaisers are inconsistent. Several pages include the "von Goldenbaum" surname--most, however, do not. We need to decided: do we add 'von Goldenbaum' to each Kaiser's name, or remove it?
+*'''Stars in the sky''' — Does every episode that takes place on Odin in the day-time count as an appearance for the star [[Valhalla Starzone|Valhalla]]? (Same for Heinessen/Bharat, Earth/Sol, Castrop/Castrop, Fezzan/Fezzan, Urvashi/Gandharva, &c.)
-Character names in general are organized haphazardly due to the presence of both Eastern and Western naming conventions, which reverse the order of forename and surname. For eastern names, this doesn't really create any issues, but for Western names, it breaks apart families. If we change all of the western pages to surname first order, we would be able to "group" families together in the category index.
+*'''Starzones''' — Does every appearance of a star or planet or asteroid or whatever inside a starzone count as an appearance for the starzone? If the chiefs of staff have a conversation in the Kriegsministerium, is that an appearance of the Valhalla Starzone? If Kircheis dies on Geiersburg, is that an appearance of the Freyja Starzone?
-Exampe: "Alex Cazerne" to "Cazerne, Alex". That way, on the index page, his link would be right beside his wife and daughter.
+When i think of how we should do appearances, only one thing seems certain, and that is that only specific, individual things should have them listed — classes of things or generic concepts should not. We also have a precedent for including non-literal appearances of things, like bridges of ships and pictures/paintings of people. So my mind, in attempt to be ultra logical, is leaning towards saying yes to all of the above. But i don't know, i feel like i haven't fully considered it <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 07:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
-:I'm torn on this. With Goldenbaum kaisers, it's pretty obvious they're all Goldenbaums. The historical precedent would be to simply refer to them as "Catherine I" and "Rudolf I" and so on. (We don't even know if those are the names they're born with, or if a Kaiser chooses a "king's name" once he ascends to the throne). Given that is how kings and emperors are historically called, I am (mostly) in favor of omitting the "von Goldenbaum" surname from pages of Kaisers. (Obviously, it should stay there for the few Goldenbaums who never got to the throne).
+===2011/04/15 — Article Tense===
+So we've decided to write all applicable articles from an in-universe perspective. Great! But a problem arises--from when are we writing? To me, it makes sense to write from a position after OVA #110. What this means, however, is that we have some trouble when it comes to writing about things that only exist within a specific time frame. For example, starzones. Where is Astarte? From our perspective, it's a starzone within the [[New Galactic Empire]]. But the same can be said for every starzone, and most fans (I should think) persist in thinking of the logh setting in terms of FPA versus Empire. For starzones, for exmaple, I've started writing, "X is a starzone in the former Free Planets Alliance," and so on.
-:My only problem arises with the fear of creating a double-standard: if we omit 'von Goldenbaum' from the Imperial Kaisers, are we not also obligated to remove the 'von Lohengramm' from the Goldenlowe kaisers? I'm not sure I'd like the pages to be, simply, 'Reinhard I,' 'Hildegard I,' and 'Alexander I.'
+Basically, what I'm saying is the tense of each article needs to be more than just simply written in the past tense, it also needs to reflect the fact that thins have changed. That the FPA and Empire and Fezzan don't exist any more, that the only "present"  political entities that exist are the New Galactic Empire and the autonomous regions around Heinessen that were established at the end of the series (which, as I understand things, are a "part"  of the NGE in the same way Fezzan was  a part of the GE. Sort of like how Australia still owes fealty to the Queen. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-:Of course, we could get around that by saying that Reinhard's last few words to Hilde prevent the Goldenlowe from being a "real" dynasty, but that would feel kinda cheap.
+:What i had put in our policy pages — and this again is based on Memory Alpha — is that we are writing from the perspective of someone who exists far enough into the future that everyone in the series is gone, but not far enough for astronomical bodies to have blown up / been destroyed / whatev. So, all articles about people and cities and governments are written in past tense, and all articles about planets and stars (as well as eternal concepts like 'terraforming' and 'ships') are written in present tense. (Otherwise stuff gets complicated and inconsistent)
-:I am currently undecided on re-ordering the pages of western-name characters. Per my usual opinion, I'm am chiefly concerned with 1) clarity and ease-of-access-of-information and 2) consistency. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 00:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
+:So i would say that that means 'in the former Free Planets Alliance' is absolutely fine. Whether we would also want to say 'in the former New Galactic Empire' is another matter. Personally i would prefer to say that a planet ''was'' in the New Galactic Empire, but leave out the 'former' so that it's a little more open-ended. This is again based on Memory Alpha's usage ('Earth ''was'' the capital planet of the Federation', but they don't explicitly state that the Federation no longer exists). <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 12:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-::I have to admit that, at least on my part, there was very little thought going into the names for all of the kaisers. It's super haphazard.
+===2011/05/12 — Topics specific to novels/manga===
+How are we going to treat topics that are specific to the novels and manga? For example, in the manga, there is a character named Elizabeth von Castrop who seems to be the commander of Castrop's personal military (and obviously a relative of his, although i'm not sure how exactly they're related). She is never even mentioned in the OVA.
-::In general i would prefer to be (if i can make up a word) a 'strict canonist' — we don't put anything into the wiki that isn't explicitly shown or heard in the series. To me that would include things like surnames. (The precedent i would point to is [[Therese]] — in all likelihood, her full name is Therese Wagner, since her father's name is [[Wagner]] and that's usually not a given name. But since this isn't actually shown or heard, i mention it only as a background note.)
+Do we create an article for her? If so, how should it be structured? Normally manga information is ''only'' allowed in the Apocrypha section — but if the character never appears in the OVA, obviously that would make for a somewhat oddly structured page. However, perhaps that's unavoidable. Not sure <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
-::So... if we were going to go that route, i would say that, no, unless they are explicitly referred to in the series as '_____ von Goldenbaum', they should '''not''' have von Goldenbaum in their name. That means Rudolf will have it, but most of the others won't.
+:I'm not sure how other wikis structure this kind of thing, but I would suggest simply naming the page: "Elizabeth von Castrop (manga)." And do the same for any novel/manga characters that don't appear in the OVAs. For characters that DO appear in the OVAs, well, that's what the apocrypha section is for, right? [[User:Canary|Canary]] 06:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
-::And i don't think that's a contradiction, because our policy should be — like Wikipedia's and Memory Alpha's — to use the most ''common'' name. Rudolf von Goldenbaum is more commonly called that in the series than 'Rudolf I', Reinhard is more commonly called 'Reinhard von Lohengramm' than 'Reinhard I', and so on — just like how, in the real world, some people are known by their middle names, and some people aren't. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
+::Yeah, that might work. We'd have to create new policies for manga-specific characters and stuff though. Guess we can work it out more fully when the time comes <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 11:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
-:::So you're fine with everything being inconsistent? I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I agree. Granted, I wouldn't change Therese's page to "Therese Wagner," because we don't know for certain that's her name... but in the case of the Kaisers, we DO know for certain that their surname is von Goldenbaum. Well, really, we don't even know if they HAVE surnames to begin with after becoming emperor.
+===2011/05/08 — Surname Determination===
+We've discussed this elsewhere, but a recent dilemma makes be want to revisit this particular issue. Namely, do we make assumptions about surnames if they are not explicitly mentioned? My dilemma involves two people by the same name [[Elizabeth]] and [[Elisabeth von Braunschweig|Elisbaeth]]. (I'm not sure where either the 'z' or 's' came from, it's possible both should be 'z' or both 's'). Two very different people with the same name. Thing is, when it comes to commoners, we have no way to know whether a surname even exists to begin with, but these two women are both Nobles. Because Elizabeth is married to [[Rudolf von Goldenbaum]], it's logical that her name would be "Elizabeth von Goldenbaum." As Elisabeth is the daughter of dear old Otto, it's clear enough that her name is Elisabeth von Braunschweig (but a bit more iffy--what if she's married? Presumably her mother, a Goldenbaum, became a von Braunschweig....)
-:::Anyway, I've renamed the issue and added another little bit about alphabetizing pages. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
+So do we make any assumptions about surnames, and if we do so, how shall we make the determination?
-::::Life is inconsistent, bros! Some people just go by different names. My father uses his middle name in day-to-day life, i don't. I don't even have the same surname as the rest of my family. That's how it is sometimes. As far as knowing that the emperors' surnames are Goldenbaum, i don't think that we do at all. Catherine, for example, was (according to Oberstein) a 'grandchild of the third kaiserin of the previous kaiser, Ludwig III' and her father's surname was 'Pegnitz'. That lends far more weight to the notion of her name being 'Catherine Pegnitz' than anything else. And that's not even unusual — for example, Queen Elizabeth's grandson (through her daughter) has the surname 'Phillips', even though the Queen obviously doesn't. In 500 years of history i bet there are dozens of examples of grandchildren and cousins with different surnames becoming kaiser. We can't necessarily assume anything about them. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 15:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:I prefer not to make assumptions if possible, as i've stated elsewhere. What that means for the specific examples you've cited — i'd have to look into it further. My ''guess'' though is that this will not be too much of an issue in practice. I suspect that the Encyclopaedia or one of the art binders will provide surnames for us, and i support the notion of allowing those names if we have none other to go on. (This is similar to MA — they relax their canon rules [for names only] in the event that a character goes unnamed in canon but is named in some other legitimate source.)
-::::Regarding the name-order thing: I strongly '''disagree''' with putting the names like that in the title. I think that there is a major incentive for us to use it the way it appears in the series — when i want to find Rudolf von Goldenbaum, the first thing i'm going to look for is R, not G. This is not only how i think of it in my mind when i want to find something, but it is also how i have been trained to do it by every wiki i've ever used.
+:In a hypothetical situation where we absolutely could ''not'' find a surname, i would say we should look at it case-by-case. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 06:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
-::::There ''is'' a possibility to use a category sort key if we want to, without having to rename the articles. (For example, Cazerne's page would still be called 'Alex Cazerne', but he would appear under the C section along with the rest of his family.) However, i'm still somewhat wary of doing this because it is confusing.
+::I've got a lot of stuff to try and add this weekend. Several characters only have 1 name. Some have no names. Keep an eye out for 'Grandpa Dusty' and his son-in-law. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-::::'''Edit:''' Apparently — and i didn't realise this — Wikipedia and Memory Alpha both sort this way in categories. Huh. For examples, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Swiss_physicists Swiss physicists] and [http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Category:Starfleet_captains Starfleet captains]. (Albert Einstein appears under E and Benjamin Sisko appears under S.) This changes my opinion somewhat; if it's how other wikis do it, it's worth looking into. It would also address my misgivings over the '3rd Battle of Tiamat' naming convention. What do you think?
+===2011/04/24 — Official/canon name spellings===
+We are undecided as to what name spellings should be considered canon for the purposes of Gineipaedia.
-::::'''Edit 2:''' I've created a test category so you can see how this would work: [[:Category:Sorting test]]. Please take a look there and let me know if it's something you want to pursue. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 16:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:My position is that we should generally follow a newest-first policy — making the official DVD subtitles (seen on the Nemesis rips, ''not'' the CA ones) the current top-priority source for the spelling of names. However, we would also want to be able to override that policy when the DVD names fail us. An example that i frequently cite is Dusty, who is called 'Dusty Attemborough' by the DVDs. In his case i would like us to be able to use the more correct LD name (Attenborough). Otherwise, the DVD names are generally more accurate (i.e., 'true to life') than the LD ones — ''Maurya'' vs ''Mauria'', ''Sithole'' vs ''Sitolet'', ''Schönkopf'' vs ''Schenkopp'', and so on.
-:::::I understand your misgivings and share them completely. The test category looks good, however: it allows us to sort by surname without making wonky page names (ex. Cazerne, Alex just looks bad, right?). I '''think''' I'm in favor of this test category thing. Only... how does it function? What criteria does it follow? We need something that can easily accommodate both eastern and western naming conventions.... don't wany Yang in the W column, after all. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 17:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:Whatever we decide on, we are going to have a list of common alternative names at the bottom of each article, so they will eventually all be listed ''somewhere'' on the site. The only question is, what do we use ''officially'' — how do we spell the article titles, how do we spell the names in body text, &c. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
-::::::The category sorting works like this: When you add a category to an article (say, <code><nowiki>[[Category:Soldiers]]</nowiki></code>), you just add a 'sort key' to the end of it. So, for Alex Cazerne, you would do this: <code><nowiki>[[Category:Soldiers|Cazerne alex]]</nowiki></code>. For Yang, you'd do: <code><nowiki>[[Category:Soldiers|Yang wenli]]</nowiki></code>. (It's important that the first letter is upper-case and everything else is lower-case and punctuation-free, because MediaWiki sorts them all separately.) Fairly easy, and completely controllable by us.
+::A couple of points. First, I think that every name spelling should be sourced for each article. There are a number of articles I see with weird names that just leave me thinking "huh?" because it's so unfamiliar. Secondly, the "Official DVD subtitles" are several generations out-of-date. Neither the remastered DVDs nor the Blu-Ray releases of LoGH use any name-plates at all, so I don't think it's wise to lock ourselves onto so old a standard. Given that these plates were intentionally removed by the producers, I believe they're worth ignoring. (Generally speaking, our "order of reliability" goes BluRay, then Remaster, then DVDs, then Laserdisc). Third: at the very least, the various spellings used by CA for all of their fansub versions (3, I believe) should be included as "alternate spellings" and have redirects. Fourth and finally,  no matter what we decide on the "official" spelling we will need to note (and remember) that whatever we decide on will only be a TEMPORARY 'official' determination, pending a possible, officially-licensed translation of either the logh ovas, or novels.--[[User:Canary|Canary]]
-::::::If you're OK with this, i ''might'' be able to have the bot change most of these for us relatively quickly (some we'll have to do by hand, but the majority can be fixed by swapping the first word with the second). But i'll have to double-check. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 18:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::My response to Canary's points above:
-:::::::Sounds like a good idea to me. Let's do it. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::I am not opposed to sourcing names. How would you recommend we do so? Maybe repurpose 'Alternative names' so that it lists all of them instead?
-::::::::I believe almost all of the characters' names (FPA, Imperial, and Phezzan — but not pre-Imperial, since you'd asked me not to mess with those) should have sort keys added now. You can check any of the People categories to be sure. I've also added little note boxes to make sure people know they're sorted by surname (that addresses my concern about it being potentially confusing at first glance). And i've also fixed the sorting for all of the battles. So that takes care of the sorting matter.
+:::Where does your claim that the official DVD subtitles are out of date come from? I know that the remaster and Blu-ray ''rips'' that have been released don't include subtitles, but that doesn't mean anything, it's just a decision that the release groups made. Perhaps we should ask someone from CentralAnime (who presumably own the DVDs/BDs) if they are included on the original discs? Or do you have a source?
-::::::::Now, regarding the rest of it — consistency and surnames and all that — is that still an open matter? <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::Even if the new releases don't have subtitles, how else would we decide what to go with? The only evidence we have of 'officialness' either way when it comes to names is the fact that the official LOGH Web site uses the same names (with the exception of Dusty) as the ones on the DVD. That suggests to me that they are more accurate than not.
-:::::::::Nah. I think we've settled everything here. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 01:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
+:::Regarding redirects and citations from other name variations, i absolutely agree 100%
-<!--
+:::Regarding a future English translation, i agree that they would take precedent. I can add a note about this to the policy pages. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 19:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
-KEEP THIS SPACE HERE FOR EASIER EDITING
+::::I've discussed the issue of missing name plates with heibi on the Central Anime forum in the recent past - they are indeed still on the DVDs (and presumably blu-ray rips), but they don't carry over automatically, so they're forced to put them back in manually. I agree that names should be sourced (perhaps in the alternative names section?) and in terms of ship names especially, maybe a little blurb as far as the "real" English name and what it actually means (i.e. "Garga Falmul" means nothing but "Galga Farmr" definitely means something, and is amusingly appropriate to Lennenkampt (kampf's?) final fate.)[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
-(BEGIN ORDER OF REAL-LIFE JAPANESE NAMES)
--->
+:::::Thanks for confirming the name-sub thing, that's really helpful. What's your opinion on which names we should choose as 'official'? Do you agree with using whatever's the most common, or do you prefer going with whatever the newest available is (with or without a 'Dusty Clause')?
-===2011/04/25 — Order of real-life Japanese names===
+:::::Also, as far as citing names, what do you reckon the format for that should be? Some of the episode titles can get quite long, so if we use the full episode citations, plus which release (LD/DVD/BD), those one-line citations we have can start turning into two- or three-line citations. Is that OK? Or should we have a names-specific abbreviated citation format?
-{{resolved}}
-Oh, another thing we must decide on: The order to use for the names of real-life Japanese people. For example, ''Yoshiki TANAKA'' (English order — surname last) or ''TANAKA Yoshiki'' (Japanese order — surname first)?
+:::::Lastly, what's a good name for this new combined names section? Maybe 'Name variations'? What do you think? <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 01:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
-'''The advantages of English order are:'''
+::::::Hmmmm. I'm not too up on all the differences so its hard for me to have an opinion on what names should be 'official'. As far as combined names section, I'd say 'Name variations' is perfectly fine.[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 06:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
-*Easily accessible to people who are unfamiliar with the Japanese order (which is a benefit considering this is an English-language wiki).
+:::::::Oh. Hum. We are at impasse then — as far as canon-ness anyway. I will have the bot replace 'alternative names' with 'name variations' now though. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
-*Using English order for real-life Japanese names would make them consistent with the order of real-life English names — assuming we ever get an English release.
+::::::::Please include whichever name is used for the page's title with the name variations. EVERY name should be included. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 00:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-*Aligns with Wikipedia usage — familiar to WP converts.
+::::::::::Yeah, that's how we'll do it. I don't think the bot can do that for us, but i did have it replace 'Alternative names' by 'Name variations'. (I also had it add 'Appendices' to most of the articles that didn't have it — but there will be some left that have weird formatting. We'll have to get those by hand. But that's... not actually relevant to this conversation...) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-'''The advantages of Japanese order are:'''
+:::::::::::Ok, having looked at the Nemesis rips, I was interested to see a few of the ship names were a lot closer to what (Japanese) fandom tells us they should be in English than the LD rips (and by extension CA's DVD rips). Of course, some were still just as weird as the original LD names. I imagine the same goes for various character names. I think I agree with Kine in that we should go from the DVDs rather than the LDs. For example (and I apologise that my focus is on ships so much but I'm just that way inclined) take the 3rd Fleet flagship. The LD rip says its "Ku Horin", the DVD rip says "Cu Chulainn". One of these names actually means something. Winner is Cu Chulainn. Same with the 8th Fleet flagship - LD rip says Kulishuna, DVD rip says Krishna. Krishna wins. Mittermyer's ship? Its IIRC "Beiowolf" in the LD rip, "Beowulf" on the DVD. Beowulf just massively wins. Also IIRC the DVD rip takes care to include omlauts (is that you spell it) in the German names, which I think is pretty important. I believe this lends credibility to the DVD rip name plates as being both a: newer and b: having a tendency to be more accurate. However, I think the variation is such that case-by-case analysis is still required - sometimes it clear that both the LD and DVD just got the names wrong, and we have to choose. Dusty is a serviceable example of when you need to look at something case by case.[[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 11:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-*More 'authentic' to those who are familiar with Japanese.
+::::::::::::I think you have encapsulated my feelings pretty well. And, just to clarify, we would only be using the original/Nemesis DVDs because it's all we have at this particular moment. By default, the newest should win, so that would mean that whenever we do manage to get access to the official name subtitles from the remasters and/or Blu-rays, those would take precedent. But as it is, all we have are the original DVDs and the LDs (Heibi2 from CA has confirmed that he uses the LD names for all of the CA remaster rips). <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-*Arguably more respectful of the culture of the person in question.
+:::::::::::::Oh! This will perhaps shed some more light on the situation: I've asked Heibi2 about the names ([http://www.centralanime.net/bboard/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=353 see here]) and he's confirmed two things: (1) The names he uses in the CA DVD rips are the LD names, because he prefers them over the newer ones, and (2) the physical remaster DVDs have the same names as the Web site, and therefore presumably the same as the original DVDs. So that should hopefully address any concerns of outdated-ness. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 06:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
-*Consistent with the policy for in-universe characters (we ''always'' use the name order given in the series, even if it's non-English, as with [[Yang Wen-li]]).
+::::::::::::::The obvious issue being the official website only has a handful of names. If we can get our hands on the tiles for the Remaster or BDs somewhere down the line, that would be ideal. Granted, at the end of the day, we'll still be accepting engrish in lieu of an official romanization. As such, it may be best simply not to have any "canon" name spelling, and just make all the versions of a given name "accepted", with page title spelling following the order of most-recent romanization (BD>RM>DVD>LD). It may be that logh will never see a licensed English translation, but until that day, I think we can't really call anything 'official' without making uncomfortable presumptions. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 03:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-*Consistent with Japanese spelling.
+:::::::::::::::Oh, naturally we would not mean to imply that our 'canon' is in any way endorsed by the franchise. I can make this clear on the policy pages at some point — any unqualified use of the term 'canon' is specific to this Web site only and can be superseded at any time by a 'higher power'. Any unqualified use of 'official' simply means that it was produced directly by the franchise's owners/producers (as opposed to fan subs or anything else).
-Please register your opinion by replying below this line!
+:::::::::::::::If you are happy with a newest-first policy, that resolves 90% of this question. The only other question is, should we have a Dusty Clause? Since we don't have access to the 'official' subtitles for the BDs or remaster DVDs, we have no way of knowing if they've fixed his name in the newer versions. What do we do about it in the mean time? (Same question for any other name that appears 'wrong' in the original DVD subtitles.) <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-:(I had been leaning towards English order, but i'm not married to the idea.) We might want to provide both orders in the body text, regardless of which we use. For instance, if we use English order we can do:
+::::::::::::::::It would be nice if we could gain access to the BD or even remaster subs. Oh well. Re: wrong names... I would say we don't change things. As per our earlier discussion, when it comes to names in particular, we have no way of knowing how the spelling and pronunciation may have evolved in Tanaka's history. Of course, by not changing incorrect names, we're assuming that any and all incorrect spellings are intential, similar to 'Hari' instead of 'Harry' in Asimov's famous novels. That said, Asimov made a habit of playing with language like that, whereas Tanaka (seems) to be going for an "exotic" flair to the names be incorporating lots of German and bits of English and Chinese. So, basically, I don't know. We can go with the incorrect names and include the 'real' spelling in the appendices; we can change the name to what we think it should be; or we can handle this on a case by case basis and go with whatever sounds best. Or we can follow CA's chosen name because it's the one our fanbase is likely to be most familiar with. At the moment, I have no strong opinion any way. So... congratulations, Vympel, it's up to you! [[User:Canary|Canary]] 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-::'''Yoshiki Tanaka''' (Japanese: '''田中芳樹''', ''Tanaka Yoshiki'') is...
+:::::::::::::::::I've recently realized that LoGH getting a Western release is far from being an impossibility: it is actually probable. For now, at least. Not the OVAs, as of yet, but the novels. Which begs and interesting question: if the novels DO get an officially-licensed translation (and the OVAs do not) then do we accept the novel names as the "canon" spellings? [[User:Canary|Canary]] 03:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
-:If we do Japanese order, we could do:
+::::::::::::::::::That's a VERY tricky question. I am not sure how i feel. On the one hand, we are primarily intended to be a resource for the anime, with everything else as a secondary focus, so it would seem to conflict somewhat with that. On the other hand, that would be an ''official English translation''!
-::'''Tanaka Yoshiki''' (Japanese: '''田中芳樹'''; English: '''Yoshiki Tanaka''') is...
+::::::::::::::::::The possibility of LOGH, novel or otherwise, getting an English translation actually presents ''heaps'' of potential problems for us. For example, what if they decided to change the name of the series itself in a theoretical English translation? Like, what if they made it 'Legend of the Star Heroes' or something? We'd have to change all of our articles, all of our citation templates.... And never mind what would happen if they did translate the OVA — the episode titles would probably all be different. Shit would be wild.
-:But maybe there are better ways, i'm not sure. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::This is all something to think about, but for the time being i don't think i can decide. I say let's wait and see what happens if this does come to pass <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 03:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
-:To me, the simplest and most accurate method would be to retain the Japanese word order. I know Western academia sees fit to alter these things as often as possible, but it's a philosophy I (strongly) disagree with. I hope my reasoning for this stance is sufficiently obvious I need not explain it, so I will only add that, should we choose to alter the naming convention for production staff (authors, actors, producers, etc.) we would ALSO need to alter the naming convention for characters, lest we find ourselves with a double standard. I think we can all agree that double standards are bad, right? If we change Tanaka Yoshiki to Yoshiki Tanaka, we would also have to change Yang Wen-li to Wen-li Yang, as well as research the etymological roots of every character's name to determine which is a surname versus forename, and alter everything accordingly. To me, that sounds like a tediously bad idea. — [[User:Canary|Canary]]
+==Resolved issues==
-::I don't agree that we would also need to change the characters' names.
+===2011/05/14 — Italicising titles===
+{{resolved}}
-::With respect of course — by arguing that having 'double standards' is inherently a bad thing, you would seemingly be arguing against your own position that we should be allowed to change date formats but not characters' names. Is that not a double-standard also? I would say it is just as much as changing Japanese names is, but that doesn't necessarily make either one the wrong way of doing things.
+Up until now, we have not been italicising the titles of books and the like. This is incorrect according to most English rules, but we (Canary and i) had discussed it a while back and we both agreed that italicising things is sort of irritating.
-::That said, as far as the philosophical issues, i have no argument for it, because you are right. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 00:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
+However, now that i've been messing with these novel and game articles, i'm starting to re-consider my thinking. Putting quotes around things over and over again within an article is messy-looking, and leaving the titles 'bare' can be confusing. Italicising would solve those problems for the most part.
-:::Date format "localization" v. name "localization" is not a double-standard, as they are two very different things. In this case, we're dealing with proper names on both ends, so it is a double-standard. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 02:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
+What do you guys reckon? I want to get an OK before i start changing things <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 18:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
-::::Well, i was actually thinking about this a bit further, and i think i'm going to concede. We both agree on the philosophical matters, my only concern was to make it friendly to people aren't familiar with Japanese conventions.
+:Seems fine with me. We could also bold things (we do, after all, bold the titles of each episode in each episode's own article). [[User:Canary|Canary]] 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-::::So '''let's do the Japanese order''' — but let's address my concern too. What's the best way to do it? Something like my example above? Or maybe a little italic line at the top that says like ''<nowiki>This person's name uses Japanese name conventions</nowiki>''? Or... something else? Let's solve problems bros <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 05:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
+::Yeah, but that's a separate thing. On Wikipedia and Memory Alpha, those bolded titles are also italicised when applicable (like they italicise 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine'). I think i'll do that. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-:::::Exactly how many instances are there of a Japanese staff member having a non-Japanese name? And rather than something at the top, I think a simple footnote ought to be fine. — ???
+::Moving this to resolved <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
-::::::I think there are two Japanese people with non-Japanese names. One is James Onoda, i can't think of the other. <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
+===2011/05/14 — Stars and starzones: separate or combined?===
-:::::::See the Naming Standards issue above: if we reorganize pages so that surnames, or family names, are always given first, we can avoid this problem. James Onoda would become Onoda, James, normal JPN names (Tanaka Yoshiki) would remain the same. If we don't do that, I suppose a footnote would be in order. Nothing too prominent ought to be necessary, I think. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
-::::::::I'm going to add a foot note as suggested; see one of the 'People' categories for an example of what this'd look like (i'll probably stick it at the very bottom of the article i guess). Considering this resolved! <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-<!--
-KEEP THIS SPACE HERE FOR EASIER EDITING
-(BEGIN STARZONE ARTICLE NAMING CONVENTIONS)
--->
-===2011/04/24 — Starzone article naming conventions===
 {{resolved}}
-''This comment has been moved from [[Project:Translation|Translation]].''
+I noticed that we've redirected [[Dagon]] to [[Dagon Starzone]]. This is how i had initially envisioned all of our star/starzone articles being set up (star redirects to starzone, then we have more information on the star there) — but so far i think most ''other'' stars have their own articles. In fact, we've even got a separate category for [[:Category:Stars|stars]] themselves.
-Neither system nor starzone should appear in page names. Just use the name of the star. Ex., Amlitzer, not Amlitzer Starzone; Sol, not Sol Starzone; Tiamat, not Tiamat Starzone; etc., etc. That would be like "America Country" and "Britain Country"--a pointless redundancy. — [[User:Canary|Canary]]
-:I don't think i would agree:
+I am open to doing it either way, personally. Both methods have their logic. But in the interest of consistency we should probably decide. What do you reckon? <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 11:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
-:1. I should point out that the articles we've brought over from LOGH Wiki, many of which were written by you, contain frequent references to '____ Starzone' and '____ star' — so this is not unique to the articles here. :p
+:I think we need separate categories, if only because at least 1 starzone (the [[Proxima Starzone]]) seems to be home to three stars. And, IIRC, binary systems are fairly common in the "real" galaxy. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-:2. The Japanese sources appear to refer to them in a majority of cases with '星域' ''Starzone'', so there's precedent there as well.
+::I'm OK with this; however, i was thinking something just now. Say i'm your average reader, and i'm watching through LOGH, and i get to the part where the subtitles mention the '[[Porewit Starzone|Holbit system]]', and i want to learn more about that. When i go to Gineipaedia, and i pop 'Holbit' into the search field, which am i more likely interested in: the starzone, or the star itself? Since the latter is never actually mentioned or seen (and this is common for stars in the series), probably i want the starzone, right?
-:3. I don't agree with your analogy. America is a country and that's all it is, but 'Tiamat' and 'Tiamat Starzone' are two different things. One is a star and one is the stellar system which encompasses that star.
+::Given that, should we maybe make the following policy? We keep the articles separate, but we name all of the star-specific ones like 'Dagon (star)' and 'Amritsar (star)'. Then, we make 'Dagon' and 'Amritsar' redirect to 'Dagon Starzone' and 'Amritsar Starzone'. That way, the reader is sure to get the most amount of information ''the first time'' they search, instead of having to go to the star page first, which in 99% of cases is never going to be more than a sentence or two.
-:I chose the latter for the article names because it was my intention that they include more than just information about the star itself. This mirrors the usage on Wikipedia (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun Sun] versus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System Solar System]) and on Memory Alpha (see [http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Sol Sol] versus [http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Sol_system Sol system]) — the only difference here is that we simply do not have enough information about most of these individual stars to give them separate articles. So i chose the one that encompasses both the star and its system, as that way it will be consistent — every star has a starzone, and every event that occurred within that starzone (whether it's near the star or not) therefore has a place in a 'starzone' article.
+::Does that make sense? <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 07:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
-:... Does that make sense? <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]]
+:::Sounds good to me. It would also be in keeping with my desire to have battle names omit the "starzone" bit because of its inconsistency. [[User:Canary|Canary]] 19:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
-::Works for me [[User:Canary|Canary]] 23:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
+::::I am still not sure i agree with that particular decision (and i'm not sure how it's related to this one) but let's discuss that separately! For now i will rename the star articles as discussed, moving this to resolved <span style="color: #bbb">&nbsp;♥</span>&nbsp;[[User:kine|<span style="color: #359fef !important;">kine</span>]] @ 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
-::: I agree that we should put in either starzone or system. I think 'starzone' sounds a bit clunky, personally, but I'm easy, really. [[User:Vympel|Vympel]] 01:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
+<div class="information" style="margin-top: 3em;"><div>Only the most recent resolved issues are listed on this page; for previous discussions, please see the [[Project talk:Policy/archive|Policy talk archive]] page.</div></div>