Staff:Discussion

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is meant for staff discussion of various issues related to either the Legend of Galactic Heroes franchise or Gineipaedia itself that do not involve specific articles or policies.

For archived discussions, see Staff:Discussion/archive (does not exist yet)

Contents

Expired certificate

Hey! I just checked the site and noticed it's had an expired certificate error for like a week or two. I'm really sorry about that. The certificate was in fact updated, but the Web server didn't reload it, so it was still using the old one. I think i've corrected it, but i will set a reminder to make sure i don't forget to check on it next time. Sorry again!  ♥ kine @ 21:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for correcting the error. =) Glacierfairy 00:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Up-coming certificate change

Last year there was some server maintenance during which i enabled HTTPS (see my post below). I had originally used a certificate from Let's Encrypt, but Vympel (and probably some other people, in all likelihood) had issues with it, so i ended up getting one from StartSSL instead.

Well, that certificate is about to expire, and, as it turns out, the company that now owns StartSSL was involved in some shady bull shit that's led to them being distrusted by all of the major browsers... so i can't get another one from them.

So... we're going to try Let's Encrypt again, like next week or the week after. The outage for this should (hopefully) be so brief that you won't even notice it, but i did want to let everybody know that i'll be messing with it. Now would be a good time to make sure your browser is up to date.

PS: In the future (maybe in a month or two?) i'd like to upgrade the server OS again, which will involve a more extended outage. I'd also like to look at finally upgrading MediaWiki — which will likely involve changing the way the site looks/works — but that's a bigger project that i may or may not have the emotional energy for.

PPS: I just want to say once again that i'm sorry about how little effort i've been putting into the wiki over the last few years. :/ It's been hard for me to get motivated given how little participation the site gets, though the fact that so many people around the world (particularly in Japan) find it useful is pretty gratifying. If anyone has any suggestions or requests regarding the site's administration i'd be totally open to hearing them.  ♥ kine @ 06:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up and don't worry about the wiki. Articles are still being created and improved, albeit at a slow pace. There's still some life in here. =) Glacierfairy 15:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Finally got around to this. The new cert is now installed. The old certificate expires in like 3 days, so i held off about as long as i could.... Hopefully you'll not notice anything different, but if you do find that your browser can't load the site any more, or if it makes you click through a warning to see it, please let me know ASAP.  ♥ kine @ 18:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible new concept sketches?

The mechanical designer Naoyuki Katoh (who was involved in the original mechanical design) has produced possible updated concept sketches of ships at http://togetter.com/li/632917?page=6

I do not know whether they are just doodles, his own imaginings or official concepts for the remake.

However, I have also found this app with original LOGH mechanical design sketches at http://www.148apps.com/app/1025450928/ Having gotten the app and had a look, I have to say I am a bit disappointed. While the pictures are high resolution, some of them are the same as the DVD feature sketches. Some are very early rough concepts that changed or were discarded. Some are rough enough and of such trivial ordinary content that I wonder why they were included at all. I would have liked the internal schematic sketch for Hyperion for example but it is not there.

Also he has an app with anthropomorphized ships (think KanColle) at http://www.148apps.com/app/1037831307/

Iracundus 11:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Up-coming server outage

I would like to take the site down within the next week or two to make the following changes:

  1. Switch from Debian 6.0 to Ubuntu 14.04
  2. Switch from Apache to Nginx
  3. Enable SSL/HTTPS (finally, what an embarrassment)
  4. Possibly make some PHP improvements (maybe HHVM)
  5. Do some misc. maintenance i've been putting off (back-ups, &c.)

This is a very big change as you can imagine, and it's not without risk. Obviously i will need to back up everything, then i'll have to spin down this server, re-create it, restore the back-ups, and re-configure everything. This will probably take several hours, a few of which will be user-visible as a complete site outage.

I doubt anyone's that worried about it, but do you guys have any concerns about this or can i just do it whenever?

Also, we are running a very old version of MediaWiki which probably has loads of vulnerabilities, and i'd like to get that updated too... but our current version is highly customised and will probably not take to being upgraded very well. I think that project will have to be put off even further, but just FYI.

PS: If you're not already using a password manager like LastPass or 1Password, you really should. Especially given that this site's been unsecured the entire time it's been up, i would strongly recommend using something random for your password here.  ♥ kine @ 21:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup re the password. No issues when it happens Vympel 06:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your notification! I have no issues with the timing for the maintenance. Glacierfairy 07:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it works now, idk. I got my first three bullet points accomplished anyway. But now it's four in the morning and i have to go to bed, so i'll sort any remaining issues later.
In the mean time, i would suggest that now that we have HTTPS you might consider changing your passwords. Also, i haven't finished re-configuring everything, so stuff like spam catching might not be 100% effective.
As always, please report and strange behaviour. I'll update again when i finish everything. Thanks!  ♥ kine @ 09:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Update: Rich-text search engine is back up, though the index isn't being updated automatically yet. Very busy week, i will probably have to work on this all piece-meal. Will keep updating  ♥ kine @ 06:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Kine, just checking whether the update is complete - currently the wiki isn't working with Firefox - everything is white and there's no images, just bare links. Works fine with Chrome though (I use Firefox however). Vympel 00:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I still have some stuff to do, but most of it doesn't affect users. I use Firefox and haven't had any issues like that — could you try to clear your cache (or just Shift+reload) to see if that fixes it? If it doesn't, could you press F12 (Cmd+Opt+K on OS X), reload the page, and let me know if there are any errors displayed on either the 'Console' or the 'Network' tab?  ♥ kine @ 21:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, just checked.

Console page says:

ReferenceError: hookevent is not defined ReferenceError: ddsmoothmenu is not defined

network page has a whole bunch of errors, it lists multiple resources and says when I mouse over them "a security error prevented this resource from being loaded"

Any ideas? Vympel 12:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The security-error thing makes sense. All of the images and CSS are on another domain (same server and everything, just a different name) for performance reasons, there's probably some kind of certificate problem with it. Can you go back to the Console tab, make sure 'Net' and 'Security' are selected at the top, reload once more, and tell me what it says those errors are? Also, what version of Firefox are using?  ♥ kine @ 03:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Took two screencaps - hopefully this reveals something, don't know if I've done it right:
http://imageshack.com/a/img633/9738/DS5UUw.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img633/7855/Er3dGs.jpg
Vympel 10:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You did, though i'm still confused. :/ What happens if you go to this link? https://c4.gineistatic.com/w/images/1/1b/Morholt%28BD%29.jpg Obv the expected behaviour is that the image loads. If it gives you an error, could you take a screen-shot of it too? I'm sorry this is so irritating btw  ♥ kine @ 03:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so the first thing that happens is a "This Connection is Untrusted" alert from firefox. Technical details tab on that page says:
"c4.gineistatic.com uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown. The server might not be sending the appropriate intermediate certificates. An additional root certificate may need to be imported. (Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer)"
I can then click 'i understand the risks' and add an exception, which after I do so takes me to the image. Now that image appears on the main page where before it didn't, but everything else is still absent and white. Vympel 07:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Aha. But those domains use the same one as the main site. Did you do the 'understand the risks' thing when you returned back to Gineipaedia the first time? If so, that certainly explains that. What version of Firefox are you using?  ♥ kine @ 09:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember honestly :( - I may have? But yeah just checked the version, it was Version 42.0. It updated to 43.0, but nothing has changed unfortunately. Vympel 11:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, shit. Firefox must not support Let's Encrypt certificates until 44.0, which is what i've been using. I had thought they'd got some intermediate that was already trusted. I guess i really should have bothered to check in lower versions though, that's kind of amateur. :/
I'll see what my options are, let me get back to you. Sorry again  ♥ kine @ 03:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's fixed now — can you confirm Vympel? E-mail should be working again too.  ♥ kine @ 07:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed, all fixed, thanks a bunch! Vympel 13:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is related, but I can no longer upload images. When I try to do so, I get this warning: "The upload directory (public) is not writable by the webserver." Is there any solutions? Glacierfairy 09:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The solution is for me to not be so stupid. :/\/ I think i've fixed it, can you try again please?  ♥ kine @ 22:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I think it is working fine now. Thanks! Glacierfairy 00:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Server outage post-mortem @ 2015-08-27

The site was down for a little while (about an hour i think) today because the database died. This was caused by Apache running the system out of memory, apparently due to too many clients accessing the site at once. Not the worst problem to have admittedly

The problem is fixed now, though it may continue to happen periodically until i sort the root cause. That will probably be when i switch the server from Apache to nginx, which will incur some necessary down-time — but that's for another day. No plans yet, just wanted to let everyone know in case someone noticed it  ♥ kine @ 20:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, noted! =) Glacierfairy 01:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

State of the site

Hey, since i'm here posting today i thought i should start a discussion on this:

When Canary and i began working on the new wiki, i was deep in the middle of an almost manic period of interest in LOGH, which resulted in an huge amount of activity on my part. Given my sleep habits and work schedule at the time, i probably spent 12 to 18 hours a day working on the site for a while. I focussed especially on the things that i enjoy most, like collecting and cataloguing (creating templates, tagging things, adding photos, comparing name variations, &c.); fortunately, everyone else here was interested in filling in the actual content — otherwise we'd probably just have a bunch of photos and categories.

Anyway, i think it was 2 or 3 years ago that my 'mania' faded, and although i have been checking in periodically i've never regained the mental state to do any more serious work like i used to think i was going to. At the same time, Canary hasn't been here much either (though he's been checking in more recently).

As a result of this, the site has been pretty neglected in terms of maintenance/administration. For example:

I used to check in at least every week just to see how things were doing, but it's getting to the point where i don't check in for weeks or even months at a time now. I do get weekly notifications about the back-ups firing, but it's so automatic for me to just delete them — the server could probably go down and i'd not notice for quite some time.

All of this is to say — are you guys OK with this? The site doesn't cost that much to run, so i can just let it be indefinitely, but i'm afraid i probably don't have the emotional capacity to do better, and i don't want that to hold back anyone else who cares about the site's fate. This is especially true now that we're seeing some English-language interest in the series — i bet we're going to get a huge influx of visitors when the new translations drop.

Is this alright? Are you happy with the site? Do you have concerns that you need me to address?

Please let me know how you feel. Cheers  ♥ kine @ 21:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I must admit I have not been very active either for the past few months, but I think the site is fine as it is, as long as it still functions properly (I quite like the design by the way; reminds me of classic wikis). As for concerns, the only one I have at this moment would be the lack of a navigation box for the Gaiden series like the one for the main OVA series (Template:Navbox/episode). If it is not too inconvenient for you, can you make it? Thanks! Glacierfairy 01:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
There must be a bunch of little 'todos' like that that i forgot to ever get around to, i'm sorry. I think i've got it working with the Gaiden now — look over the updated documentation at {{navbox/episode}} and let me know if you find any issues. I suppose it'll also need updated when the new anime series is released too. It's going to be very confusing to have the LOGH series code refer to the OVA and then have to make up some different code for the new anime....  ♥ kine @ 03:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your work! As for the upcoming series, it probably will have a slightly different title to distinguish it from the original, so that can be used. If not, the worst case scenario will be extending the existing acronym into something like "LOGHTV". So I'm sure it will be alright. =) Glacierfairy 05:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey kine - I'm really happy with the look of the site. I know nothing about the particulars of running a wiki, but in terms of its look and how it functions, I couldn't be happier. I visit regularly, but haven't been contributing much due to how busy I've been. It would be a horrible shame if we lost the wiki given the great work we've all put in. Vympel 11:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That's great, i'm glad you like it. I have no plans for getting rid of it, i just wanted to make sure i'm not dragging the project down in my absence. Maybe when the English stuff comes out we'll get some new users who might be able to contribute in the more technical areas.
I probably will at the very least add SSL when Let's Encrypt goes public, i guess. That won't be for a few months though.
In the mean time, please leave a message on my talk page (or use the little e-mail function) if you guys need me to do anything else.
PS: I should mention that, although i plan to keep the site up as long as i can afford it (i'm not hurting for it so far), and i do have complete back-ups being dumped every week to AWS, everyone who has a stake in the site should definitely be downloading the XML dumps at least once a month or so. This ensures that, if i get hit by a bus or something, you guys will be able to carry on.  ♥ kine @ 03:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Cool no worries. If you need some cash on account of supporting the site let me know - maybe we can do a paypal thing or something. Vympel 11:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

New hierarchy of canon: preliminary discussions

Way back when we first migrated to Gineipaedia and became all repectable and such, we had several discussions on the hierarchy of canon (IE which media's canon would supersede other's). It was a bit of a murky topic as there was no official English-language media to go by. Well, that's all about to change soon, so I think it's a good time to revisit the topic.

After all, by this time next year (presumably) we will have three different versions of the Japanese OVAs to go by, as well as (at the very least) fansubs of the new TV anime, official English translations of the OVA series, and official English translations of the (at the very least, first) novel. Honestly I never thought I'd live to see such a day (though I guess I still might not.

The only thing I can say for certain is that we're gonna need a lot more redirects. Anyway, there are pros and cons to each different hierarchy we could use, but I would recommend the most straightforward (below) even though it might very well alienate fans who are too accustomed to the fansubs romanizatioins (note how many Dragonball fans, myself included, will use "saiyajin" instead of "saiyan"):

  1. Viz' licensed novel translations (even if they drop the series prior to completion).
  2. Sentai Filmworks licensed English BRD release (assuming there is one).
  3. Sentai Filmworks licensed English DVD release (assuming there is one).
  4. Japanese BRD release.
  5. Japanese DVD release.
  6. Japanese LD release.
  7. Original Japanese novels.
  8. Licensed production materials (magazines, models, etc.).
  9. Tertiary works (2nd anime series, stage production, etc.).

The key are the first two, I think: that novel canon should supersede OVA canon, and that licensed English canon should supersede Japanese canon, and that subsequent adaptations (the tertiary works) be supervised by *everything*). For example, the LotR wiki is focused on the novels, so they take precedence over all else. Inconsistencies in subsequent adaptations are not present in the main body of the articles, but relegated to a secondary section. IE "Portrayal in adaptations." Canary 21:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to check in on Gineipaedia regularly so my apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere... Recently. I know we've discussed canon hierarchies extensively, but that was prior to all these spiffy licensing announcements.Canary 22:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand in what situation the novel would ever be required to supercede the OVA. The show is an adaptation of the books and should be considered on its own. Two seperate 'universes' as it were, the same as the manga and the show are clearly seperate. That's my opinion, in any event. EDIT: to clarify, no one ever has arguments about Lord of the Rings novels and apppeals to the films. They're clearly understood to be two seperate things. Vympel 12:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
A hierarchy still needs to be established. IE are we aiming to primarily be a wiki for the old OVA, transform into a wiki for the novels/new show, or for the franchise as a whole? And if it's the franchise as a whole, which material do we prioritize? IE "Portrayal and adaptations."Canary 21:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should retain the current hierarchy that places the anime adaptation at the top (cf. Policy:Canon), since our wiki here is already oriented towards the anime and not the novels, and I am of the opinion that most fans of this series will still encounter it through the anime adaptation and not the original novels, even if the novels are now licensed. I do hope that Sentai Filmworks do not screw up the character names though. Glacierfairy 00:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Lordy, lordy. That's just what we need: more name variations. Just imagine if both official translation bring two new sets of slightly-different names. Things could be crazy. Anyway, thinking on it, perhaps we should look to The Witcher's wiki(s?) for direction? I'm not familiar with them, but like us, the vast majority of (English-speaking) fans are more familiar with the video game adaptations than the original source material.Canary 18:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I personally feel like our focus should be on the prevailing media — that's specifically why we chose the anime over the novels and manga the first time around, because that's what the vast majority of our potential audience would be familiar with. In the event that the novels become more well known in the English-speaking world than the anime, i would agree that we should shift our focus, but i highly doubt that will happen.
As for the English vs Japanese angle, i guess our current policy is that English takes precedent (even though, until now, there has been no English media). Now that we're faced with the actual prospect of English translations, i feel a flush of, i don't know, hipster-ism (?), in that i suspect the English translations will probably 'butcher' it somehow, and i'll be that nerd in the corner complaining about how they went main-stream or whatever. That said, again, the vast majority of our audience is probably going to be more familiar with the English translations, so.... Here's hoping desperately that they don't change too much.  ♥ kine @ 20:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, given how many names, like Ba‘alat, might draw from less widely known sources, I could see how the translations might get mangled if the people doing it do not bother to do some research and just put down something based on the katakana pronunciation. I mean, even now in some other discussions online people still refer to things like the Battle of Amlitzer instead of the Battle of Amritsar, even though we found out the reference was Amritsar years ago. It sounds crazy, but I wonder whether Sentai could be contacted or be interested in using some of the names we have determined on Gineipaedia. Iracundus 20:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between canon 'heirarchy' and emphasis of the site. I agree our focus should be the anime, 100%. Vympel 11:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Fan translations and ethics

Naturally with official English translations of the novels incoming, I do not think we can justify continuing to host the fan translations here. The original intent was to keep the novel 1 translation visible and preserved for the community. Presumably that will soon cease to be a concern. I would suggest removing all of the hosted translations and replacing their spot with brief summaries. I think we really have to remove them--the question is one of timing. Do we get rid of them all at once this month, or incrementally? IE when story Y is published in English, we remove its translation, and so on. Thoughts?Canary 22:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the typical policy (used by manga sites and similar, for example) is to take it down as soon as it's licensed, even if it's not released or anything. I doubt the rights holders will buy the argument that we're taking them down gradually, and since the domain is in my name and the hosting is paid for by me, i kind of have a selfish motivation to not run afoul of them....  ♥ kine @ 20:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Planned server outage for Friday 6 March

Just wanted to make everyone aware that, this coming Friday, there is going to be some security maintenance done by our hosting provider which necessitates taking the site down. The notification i received indicated that this may last up to (but probably less than) 2 hours, after which time the servers will be rebooted. However, i will probably not be available to check on it right away, so if things don't come back up on their own it might go on for a while longer.

The exact maintenance start time is:

Let me know if you have any questions!  ♥ kine @ 06:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Noted :) Vympel 09:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification! Glacierfairy 12:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Server stuff 2014-04-27

I've installed a number of much-needed server package updates today. Obviously things seem to be functional, but i did upgrade a lot of stuff.

I also set up some caching for PHP which ideally will make things slightly faster. I haven't noticed any difference yet personally, but we'll see.

Just wanted to document it somewhere. Please let me know if you notice any weird issues.  ♥ kine @ 07:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Server issues

Something (apparently Lucene, but i'm not sure) caused the server to run out of memory and die this morning. I've restarted it and everything seems fine.

There was also a mail misconfiguration, which i think i've corrected, hopefully. You might get some really old e-mails though, if you had some in the queue.

Please let me know if you notice any other issues  ♥ kine @ 15:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! I was wondering what happened but it seems ok now. Glacierfairy 00:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm pissed, my up time was 510 days :(  ♥ kine @ 04:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It did it again. idgi :(  ♥ kine @ 10:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This time the database was fucked. I don't even know  ♥ kine @ 02:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. :( I'm very sorry that the site keeps going down. It keeps running out of RAM/swap and killing things, but i'm not sure why. There seem to be an abnormal number of Apache instances all at once, though, so i will investigate that i guess.

Maybe it is related to the black-listing change i made, maybe my server just can't handle it with the number of spam sign-up requests we get. I am going to disable it and see what happens.  ♥ kine @ 17:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've removed all of the black lists except two, i'll start with that. Additionally, i've doubled the amount of RAM available on the server, which should help things even if that wasn't the problem.  ♥ kine @ 17:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems the spam accounts are starting up again. Iracundus 13:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know that there's much more i can do from the account sign-up end. At some point they just get humans involved, i think.
One more thing i can try is to look through all of the text they're inserting and see if i can't add some more regex stuff to block it.  ♥ kine @ 13:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
For 10 days they dropped off so I think the original idea was working. Maybe more black lists but not as many as originally as a sort of compromise? Iracundus 13:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, for those 10 days the site was mostly down :/  ♥ kine @ 23:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. I've identified several patterns in the text that spammers use and have added them to the spam block list. Please let me know if you encounter any false blocks. As far as re-adding one the black-lists, i will investigate it next. I want to see how this looks first.  ♥ kine @ 01:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Blu-ray discs!

Hey! Since our quest for proper BD rips hasn't panned out, i went and found some of the LOGH Blu-ray discs. The first one i could find was BOX3 disc 11, which happens to contain episode 57. Although this doesn't answer the burning question of whether they fixed Dusty's name, this is a lucky episode since it contains a huge number of name subtitles at the beginning. And based on those i can say this:

From what i can tell, all of the names appear exactly the same as the DVD ones. The only difference is that the subtitles don't seem to contain the Japanese text that the DVD ones do (or if they do the player software i tried doesn't support it). I've included an example for comparison, see down below there.  ♥ kine @ 16:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)



Awesome. Do you do requests? :) If so, if you have the disc for the Season 1 Gaiden, this laserdisc image of the Perun (the only external image of it that exists in the entire animated series, btw) from Gaiden Season 1 needs replacement:- File:Perun(LD).jpg Vympel 05:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately all i can find for now were BOX3 of OVA and BOX3 + BOX4 of Gaiden, so i'm missing a bunch of parts like that that are really crying out for BD shots. :(  ♥ kine @ 06:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ship classes

I don't like the way we have these currently. Here is what i would like to do:

1. We create a sub-cat of 'Technology' called one of the following:

(FYI: For their categories, Wikipedia use 'types' and Memory Alpha use 'classifications'.)

2. We create ONE article per type — one article called Destroyer, one article called Battleship, &c.

3. Any FPA/Imperial-specific information and pictures can go into the FPA/Imperial sections of those articles. I think this is good for the following reasons: (a) We probably don't have enough information on 'FPA destroyers' or whatev individually to cover a whole article. (b) We would have more freedom to do comparisons within the same article. (c) We don't separate other similar articles like 'Battle axe' and 'Cannon' into FPA/Imperial, why should we do so with ship classes? (d) It will help readers get to the information they're after more quickly — if you type in 'Destroyer', do you want to just read about destroyers, or do you want to have to choose between two different articles covering the same topic?

4. I also would propose merging the 'FPA ships' and 'Imperial ships' articles into a single article called 'Ship' or 'Star ship' or whatever the preferred terminology is, and making it the 'lead' article for the Ship types/classes/classifications category (in the same way that 'Planet' is the lead article for the 'Planets' category). I suggest this mostly for the same reasons as the above. It would also help us consolidate background information and other things like that relating to ships.

What do you guys think?  ♥ kine @ 07:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

On the whole this seems like a good idea. However, it seems to me that rather than having a single article per type (and merging types) it would be more efficient just to have one article, period. I.E. "Ship classes" as one page (maybe leading a category? Maybe not) w/ each individual classification being represented under its specific heading. The reason being I don't think we'll be able to muster more than a handful of sentences per ship type--they'd basically just be about functionality, standard dimensions and battlefield role, right?
Regarding making this page the lead-in for a Ships category...? I don't know. I think it's good to divide the ships by faction. Maybe make FPA Ships/Imperial Ships/Other Ships/etc., all sub-categories of a "Ship" category?
And as for the name... yeah, I've got an opinion on that (whee~). I think just "ship." Some old fogey from the 60's (possibly Asimov?) said once that he hated the term "starship" because it was a pointless concession to the reader. In the setting, it'd be pointless to call a ship a starship because OBVIOUSLY all ships were used for space travel--there would be no need to distinguish them. It's basically a term that exists to remind the readers/viewers that, hey, this is the future! Canary 01:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

____ Guys?

So kine is the site/policy guy, Vympel is the warship/battles guy, and I'm the empire guy. Doesn't that feel... unbalanced? We need an FPA guy. Anyone know anyone?Canary 18:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I used to find the FPA incredibly boring, but i find myself more and more endeared to their side of the story as time goes on. I certainly like their buildings and ships and their Indian starzone names, if nothing else. You could consider me a pseudo-FPA 'guy' perhaps, if you like  ♥ kine @ 05:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I love me some warships and battles - but I fully intend to make contributions *everywhere* about *everything* when I rewatch the whole series from go to woah in the near future. So .... look out! In the nearer term, I'll be going over battles when I'm done with ships. I might mix it up in the next couple of days, see how I go :) Vympel 05:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Galactic Geography

We need to figure things out. (And make a Galaxy page). We know that the Empire is located predominanty in the Orion Arm. The FPA is located primarily in the Sagitarius Arm. There are a number of conflicting maps of FPA/Imperial territory (most agreeing that the combined territories occupy about half of the Milky Way). Are there any detailed, primarly-level maps out there (from either the OVAs or Novels) we could use to try and determine what, exactly, the shape of things is?

Some interesting stuff... I'm still trying to build a "picture" of the LoGH universe, and I've just realized something that indicates that virtually ALL of the fan-created maps (or even licensed maps) are grossly incorrect. In Spiral Labyrinth, Yang travels from Heinessen to the distant frontier of the FPA (covering what appears to be about 2/3s to 3/4s the width of the whole FPA. The distance between the two locations is 480 light years.
Because the FPA and Empire are both depicted as being similar in size, we can estimate that both territoris encompass a 2D circular territory about 500 or 600 LY in diameter, making the whole of colonized worlds only about 1000LY or so in diamter, spread across 2 arms of the Milky Way Galaxy. (Again, 2D estimates in line with the Galactic plane). Notice how none of the "official" maps in the OVAs show the galaxy as a whole? That's because the galaxy is too big. Current estimates place the Milky Way galaxy with a diameter of 100,000LY to 200,000LY (and some research indicates it may be even BIGGER). This means that, at best, in by 800 UC (2 NIC / 491 IC / 3600 CE) humanity has only explored/settled about 1% of the galaxy.
Personally... I find this awesome. I love it when a science fiction writer has a sense of scale. It always bothered me how most scifi leaps from "solar system" to "whole galaxy." Will probably try to compile all of this (along with visual screenshots of various maps from the OVAs, encyclopedias, and perhaps fan sources) later this week. Canary 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article Selection

Wouldn't it be cool if each time the front page loaded, the "Featured Article" list was different? Let's make a list of articles we want to be included as "featured." In terms of general criteria, let's say that they most contain more than 1 section and be mostly complete. Once we have 25 or so total, we can set it up. Sound good?

I would suggest the folowing articles: Inferior Genes Exclusion Act; Legnica; Tanaka Yoshiki; Annerose von Grünewald; and Bloody Night Canary 22:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, once we get enough good content we would ideally want to start doing a Wikipedia-style single 'featured article' with an excerpt and all of that, so i'm not sure how much energy we want to expend on this (temporary) list in the interim.
As a general rule, though, i think the following things should be true about a featured article: (1) All statements are sourced [disqualifies most of those]; (2) all content is original [disqualifies Tanaka Yoshiki, since it's copied straight from WP — we really need to fix that when we get a chance]; (3) does not contain parts that require clean-up/citation; and (4) is at least nearly complete. That's why i chose the ones we've got up there now — not because i'm particularly proud of them or think they're interesting topics, i just thought they fit the general idea of what a 'good' article ought to be.  ♥ kine @ 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Only one article at a time? Well, I suppose that works, but that's mostly a formatting concern. My point about determining a list of suitable topics still stands. As for the pages I pointed out above, I've gone through and cleaned them up. All are at a "quality" level, by my estimation, at present. With one exception--Annerose's page. I think the Bio is nearly complete (could stand to be better written) unless we want to add in all of the events/conversations where she was present, but not really involved (the Duel). The main issue is citation, as 1) I'm not sure on the {{}} format for anything other than the main OVA series, and 2) not all of the Gaiden episodes have pages yet. so....
I'll also add Galactic Empire to the list, now that I've finished that page. Eventually we'll want Yang and Reinhard and FPA and NGE up there, too, but I say keep the rest of the cycling articles more esoteric. Personally, I find the pre-Imperial background history to be pretty interesting, so I think that's a good place to draw from, as are any articles that heavily source non-animated material. Canary 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

New Galactic Empire v. Old Galactic Empire

Lohengramm's Neue Reich presents us with an interesting problem: because Reinhard became emperor through technically legal methods (the forced abdication of the last Goldenbaum ruler) the 'Neue Reich" is, basically, the same entity as der Alten Reich. Two dynasties, one empire. But due to the numerous social and political reforms he initiated and Hildegarde von Mariendorf continued, as well has the annexation of the Free Planets Alliance, the social, political, territorial and even economic characteristics of Reinhard's empire are radically different than those of the Empire under the Goldenbaum Dynasty.

So do we view the Neue Reich as a separate political entity with as separate article (the New Galactic Empire) or do we consolidate everything on the Galactic Empire page? For a historical analog to consider, the transitions from Han to T'sao Wei to Jin dynasties in China were all legal (and also forced abdications) transitions, so the Chinese nation was basically the "same" from dynasty to dynasty, despite, you know, vast social, political, territorial and economic differences. Most, if not all academic sources, however, tend to divide Chinese history between dynasties as though each were a separate state. Wikipedia does this as well. Canary 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they should be separate entities with separate pages and separate categories and all that jazz. Both the official subtitles and the Japanese fan sources continue to refer to it using the same words and characters as for the Goldenbaum Empire, except in a few very specific cases. (For example, in that passage about Hilde i quoted you from the LOGH Encyclopaedia, it says that she became regent of 銀河帝国 the Galactic Empire.) It's also sort of cumbersome to use in a sentence  ♥ kine @ 04:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree it can be cumbersome, but I think I've managed to make it more practical by combining certain things. Basically, even though the terminology and basic social/political structure of the New Empire was an extension of the old, I feel it's necessary to differentiate the two because of the introduction of the new calendar, in addition to the points I mentioned earlier. Socially, politically and geographically we're looking at two very different entities.
How I've chosen to integrate this "dual" page is fairly simple, I think. Basically, it just means adding "New Galactic Empire" tags to anything that also has a "Galactic Empire" tag, and simply changing the "Galactic Empire" tag to "New Galactic Empire" for anything that only involves the new empire--like the New Imperial Capital. The Imperial Warships and Imperial Citizen category pages have also been edited to that, in their description, it is clear they include pages from BOTH. In the end, all it amounts to is adding "New" and a space to the text, and that's not really cumbersome at all. And it can always be "hidden" in the link. Canary 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough  ♥ kine @ 02:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, in re-organising our categories i am starting to wonder about the way we've got this arranged. Here are my concerns:
1. It seems like an extremely large proportion of Imperial topics (more than half by my estimation) will fall under both Galactic Empire and New Galactic Empire. All told this will represent probably hundreds of articles with duplicate categories. When there are so many articles like this i think it begs re-examination either of the structure or of the utility of the categories.
2. The 'Galactic Empire' category is being used simultaneously as a catch-all for every Galactic Empire topic (old and new) and as a category specifically for 'Old Galactic Empire' topics. This can't work — either Galactic Empire is a super-set containing all Imperial topics, or it's entirely distinct from the New Galactic Empire, it can't be both at the same time.
3. If the New Galactic Empire is a sub-set, then (a) the New Galactic Empire cat should be a sub-cat of Galactic Empire, and (b) any article that is part of the New Galactic Empire cat should be removed from Galactic Empire, because there is no reason to have an article that is already a member of a sub-set of something also be a member of its super-set.
4. However, if we did that, then it would falsely imply that NGE-specific topics, like the New Imperial Capital, are also related to the Old Galactic Empire, which of course they are not.
5. The only alternative that i can see that would logically resolve #4 is to treat them as distinct and unrelated entities. However, although that would be logical for hierarchical purposes, i do not think it would coincide with the reality of the LOGH universe, which is that in spite of its social differences the New Galactic Empire is a continuation of the same nation (in the same way that the 'Constitution America' is a continuation of the 'Articles of Confederation America'). Perhaps more importantly, it would also lead us back to problem #1.
I am having a difficult time reconciling these problems in a way that makes their existence useful to readers. (I am imagining the follow scenario, for example: Say we have a near-perfect wiki with hundreds or maybe thousands of articles for Imperial topics, and [conservatively] maybe half of those share the GE and NGE categories in common. What if a reader wants to find articles specific only to the NGE? If he is going to have to wade through hundreds of irrelevant articles, how is it of any more use to him than if those NGE topics were just part of the GE cat to begin with?)
(This whole issue also leads into the question of what to do about Fezzan — they are mostly autonomous, and their citizens certainly seem to think of themselves as independent, and yet they technically are not. Should all Fezzan categories be sub-categories of Galactic Empire?)  ♥ kine @ 21:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Two points:
1) Regarding categories... my feelings on this have changed somewhat, though I have not yet gone through to clean things up. Basically, I'm thinking that there should only be ONE Galactic Empire category, but keep the two Galactic Empire pages. It would still be necessary for us to remember to link to the correct page in text. For example, when discussing the Empire for S3-4 events, we'd have to link to the New Galactic Empire page, not the (old) galactic empire page. That, I think, is the simplest and most efficient system. Ideally, the approach I think we ought to take is simply to have as FEW categories as possible.
2) Fezzan should be a sub-category of Galactic Empire, yes. Or, rather, maybe. Wasn't Hong Kong officially an autonomous part of the PRC for that half century or so? Or was it only *temporarily* independent? Canary 04:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Ohhh, this is very confusing.
If you are happy with one Galactic Empire category, then i think that solves our dilemma. I am happy with two Galactic Empire pages, so that seems fair. If you'd like, i can have the bot auto-remove the NGE categories from every page, you don't have to do it manually.
Re Fezzan: I could go either way. Hong Kong was independent of China for 150 years until it was ceded back to them. And that happened before Wikipedia was created, so we can't see what they categorised them as before that. :p Wikipedia lists Taiwan under both 'China' and 'Countries', though  ♥ kine @ 13:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Detail of Production Staff articles?

I'm curious about how much depth we want to include in the production staff pages, and how much interest we think the community will have in these pages. Other than basic work histories (filmographies, etc.) should we try to include basic biographical information? Canary 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be a priority, no. In terms of both reader and contributor interest i suspect that far more focus will be placed on in-universe topics, so i don't think we should waste time/effort on this now. But obv it is not something we should disallow or anything; it will just come later  ♥ kine @ 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gineipaedia Icon

What do you guys thing, should the Brunhild in the icon be slightly larger? I feel like the ship's length is too well matched with the Goldenbaum seal, and I'd like to see a bit more obvious of an overlap. Maybe not. (This is basically just a sample discussion topic). Canary 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer the Goldenlohen crest. :) Vympel 07:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I would, as well. Unfortunately it's too impractical--the Goldenlowe crest has too many details that just don't work in silhouette, and the only decent images we have of it are very fan-arty. Canary 17:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem with the sizing. (As far as the content itself, it's not ideal, but i think it's sufficient for our current purposes)  ♥ kine @ 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I mentioned this to Kine in email, but I ultimately came around to the icon using the Goldenbaum crest. With the Brynhild superimposed on top of it, it symbolizes Reinhard's ambitiin--and eventual usurpation--rather nicely.

Anyway, anyone remember if I ever uploaded the original version of the icon anywhere? It was super high resolution. I'd like to try and recover it, if I could. I thought I uploadedmit somewhere but haven't been able to find it.Canary 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean this one? File:Gineipaedia.png  ♥ kine @ 20:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rank template — and ranks question

FYI, i've created a {{rank}} template for linking to FPA/Imperial military ranks. I found writing out the whole link to be quite tedious, so hopefully this is easier. There's documentation on its page, but basically this is how it's used:

{{rank|fpa|fleet admiral}} [[Yang Wen-li]] -> Fleet Admiral Yang Wen-li

This is not intended to be used every single time we give someone's rank, mind you. Just the first time usually. After that you can just write out 'Fleet Admiral', so it doesn't need a template.

On a related note — how do we feel about the rank distinctions that some translators (like CA) make between navy and other branches? For example, Schönkopf is referred to as a 'general' (an army rank). No distinction is made between any of these in Japanese (it's the same word no matter what the branch), and even the rank insignia in the show is identical for all of them... but it does make sense to translate them that way, intuitively.

And if we do do it that way, i wonder how we will make the distinction in the template....  ♥ kine @ 17:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Novel names

I am not sure what titles we should give to the novels. Technically, they have names — Dawn, Ambition, &c. But they're not necessarily analogous to episodes, so i'm not sure if we should call them 'Dawn' and 'Ambition'. What do you reckon? Just keep using the full names?

PS: The manga volumes do not have names, as far as i can tell. They are just called 'Legend of Galactic Heroes 1', 'Legend of Galactic Heroes 2', and so on

PPS: I am working on making all of the covers look nice (as well as they can anyway, considering the scans are god-awful quality) and then uploading them; i'll try to do it in batches of three. edit: Novel covers are done.  ♥ kine @ 11:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Important question re the position of Iserlohn!

This has been bothering me for a while, but it didn't occur to me how much of our content it could affect until just now: So far on our wiki, we have been operating under the assumption that Iserlohn Fortress is located within the Tiamat Starzone. However, i don't think this is true, for three reasons:

1. In the first or second episode of the OVA (i forget which), when the narrator is talking, it shows a diagram of Iserlohn's orbit. The point in the centre of that orbit is labelled Altena.

2. The Japanese Wikipedia's section on Iserlohn also says that it revolves around Altena.

3. This map, which i think is from the manga, explicitly states that it's in the Altena system.

The one thing (well, three things) i can find that contradicts this are the video games — they all show Altena as being somewhat distant from Iserlohn. But they're video games. :/  ♥ kine @ 17:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Iserlohn Position.jpg
Iserlohn would quite clearly appear to be in the Altena starzone. Which, I guess, should be re-named Artena? And then there's this "Revolve Truck" thing....
So it looks like we're going to have some trouble re-organizing the various Battle of Tiamat pages. From looking at the Third Battle of Tiamat OVA, it would indicate that prior to the 3rd Battle, there had already been 6 attacks on Iserlohn, one of which was nearly successful.
I think I'm going to make the creation of an accurate map based off OVA information my top priority now. Something like that would have helped us catch this Tiamat thing a lot sooner. Canary 12:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Wouldn't it be nice if things were simple? Thing is, the 4th Battle of Tiamat involves Iserlohn Fortress in a big way, and the Battle of Altena very clearly occurs very far away from Iserlohn. This is gonna be... messy. It's possible the Battle of Altena occurred in a different, similarly-named starzone. Reinhard says あるてな (arutena) when he orders Mittermeyer to halt Staden. It's possible that the "Altena Sector" encompasses multiple starzones... but that would make Mittermeyers orders to place mines the in the sector absolutely silly. Canary 12:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Opinions: dimming bracketed phrases

Hey there, want an opinion on something. As part of the italic-title template i've created, i added a feature that would automatically dim bracketed phrases at the end of the title. You can see this on the following pages:

Do you guys like this? I think it might help to reduce the visual focus on disambiguation terms, making the actual title stand out... but i'm not sure. This is something that no other wiki does, so i don't have a precedent. (If you guys did like it, i would create a template to dim bracketed phrases in non-italicised titles as well.)  ♥ kine @ 00:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.Vympel 00:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Canary 12:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Name-variation citations

I was finding our current format for name-variation citations a little cumbersome as far as reading, so i'm changing it. It's a fairly minor change, but here is what i'm proposing (and have partially changed already):

The only thing i haven't changed yet is the references to the DVDs, because i want to make sure we are OK with that first. From talking with Heibi (of CA) it seems pretty clear that the remaster DVDs have the same subtitles as the original DVDs — so can we just get rid of the 'original' qualifier until someone can prove otherwise? Or do we absolutely need it?

As you can tell i would like to compress this as much as possible. (By the way, if you find the code i'm using too complex, don't even worry about it, just put 'LD/DVD subtitles' or whatever. I will have the bot periodically add the abbreviation help code.)  ♥ kine @ 09:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Miscellany
Common
Tool box