Talk:Quetzalcoatl

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

Name issue

This ship brings up a new issue - this is a ship that is never explicitly named in any version of the OVA. It is only named in licensed material. An FFC for this ship hasn't been done yet - however, 1/5000 models of this ship have been done by Alba-Create (they also make the FFC models, by the way) attesting to that name (check discontinued items on HLJ) and on the fansite with the .gifs. This brings me to ask - is there any purpose in treating the licensed models non-canon? What about them could possibly be non-canon? All they really have to tell us is the name of the ship - and there's a website with nice pics of them that would be useful for weapons count. This issue will come up several times more - Merktaz' and Staden's ship in ONW, for example. Vympel 08:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no issue at all with using the names, i think we're all agreed on that already. I've even put on the canon policy page that it's OK to use secondary/licensed sources for names if the official sources don't contain them. So that is no problem.

I also agree that it's acceptable to use licensed sources in the infoboxes, as we have been doing with FFC. If there's another citation code that i should make for the 1/5000 models so we can use weapon counts or whatever from those in the infoboxes, i will def do that as well. Just let me know what they should be called!

The only thing i am hesitant about is mixing secondary/licensed information into the main body of the article (above the 'Appendices' section). I think doing that would represent a serious inconsistency with relation to other sources, would make articles too volatile (new merchandise is coming out all the time for example), and would make it difficult for us to ever say that the main body of the article is 'complete' (again, because new merchandise is coming out all the time). If we limit secondary/licensed stuff to their own sections under Appendices, then it's all clearly delineated.  ♥ kine @ 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tsk, I should've rechecked the policy page, I was going by vague memory! But yeah, a citation code for the Alba Create models. Hmmm. ABM? As for the licensed information/ appendices issue, I think we've discussed it in the past, I believe Canary and my opinion was that if we put say, the significant amount of fluff text in the FFC booklets (when we translate them - a fellow on SDN recently managed to translate a lot of info on the Battle of Dagon from the old-style battleship entries in those booklets by use of WebOCR and copious auto-translation checking and rechecking!) in Appendices the situation would soon arise that the Appendices are far longer and more informative than the main article. Anyway, not really relevant to this issue, that was just me forgetting to check the policy page, derp. Vympel 00:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)