Talk:Leda II

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Organisation of apocrypha / licensed information

The organisation of the Appendices section sort of bothers me right now, because we've got sources broken up all over the place. Specifically, we have information from the same FFC source appearing under Background information, under the top-level Apocrypha section, and then under the Fleet File Collection section.

I guess we are still not 100% set in our organisation, so there's not yet a 'right' way of doing this, but to me it seems like the logical set-up would be to have as much of the 'apocrypha'-type stuff grouped together as possible, right? This is generally how other wikis like Memory Alpha and Bulbapedia are set up (with a clear division of sources).

On the other hand it looks like we've combined sources in the Licensed sources section in order to form a narrative, so maybe that wouldn't work after all.... I don't have those in front of me right now so i'm not sure what's being pulled from where. These licensed/apocrypha additions are mostly new territory so i don't know

Also: It's not present in this article itself, but i noticed in another article or two that references to the Bussard collectors are being made in the main body rather than Appendices — are we sure we want to do that? If the purpose of the red grilles is not stated in the animated sources, it seems like adding it (the purpose i mean, not the features themselves) to the main body would be questionable, especially since the claims didn't seem sourced  ♥ kine @ 14:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bussard collector purpose is given on the 2nd page of the Leda II entry in the FFC 9, and it is only known that it refers to the red grilles on other flagships because of visual similarity and because it makes reference that the Leda II mounted them on the sides of its hull like Ajax class flagships. The problem is that the information is broken up all over from various sources. For example, the Leda II entry in FFC 9 mentions neutron beam cannons as main guns using new accelerators but only mentions low caliber rapid fire beam cannons around the bridge for use against fighters. However the Leda II entry in the Mechanic and Seiyu Databook does mention the main guns as being superior, though does not name as neutron beam cannons, yet the rapid fire beam cannons are given as electron beam cannons. Ultimately Wright Staff was involved in both these sources, although there are some very subtle differences in some nuggets of data such as the Ajax class being referred to as Achilleus class in the Data Book. Since the data is scattered between sources, if it were just a simple listing of every piece of information plus source, it would become just an incoherent listing. Iracundus 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, that's fair.
I've done a bit of a reorganisation to make things hopefully more consistent (at least in my own mind):
  • Moved the Data Book service history to its own section — this seems pretty self-contained, and most ships with Data Book histories won't have a big Licensed sources background section like this one does, so this would make it more consistent i think
  • Put the DVD sketches in gallery form — i'm thinking we should do this whenever there are multiple images for a section that is not big enough, text-wise, to support them, otherwise it gets lop-sided and weird
  • Moved the orphaned 'Brünhild shock' thing into the main FFC section (also reformatted it, italics are working weird unless i escape the quotes...)
If this is alright with you (is it? let me know), i would ask one last thing to make this perfectly anally consistent for me. :) When we source things in the main article bodies, we put citations like this:
<information from episode 001> (LOGH: 'In the Eternal Night')
<information from episodes 001 and 002> (LOGH: 'In the Eternal Night', 'The Battle of Astarte')
<information from episode 002> (LOGH: 'The Battle of Astarte')
In other words, if one paragraph contains information from a source that the preceding and/or following paragraph doesn't, then we add an extra citation.
Is this necessary for the Licensed sources section you wrote, or does every single paragraph contain integrated data from both sources? Thank you!  ♥ kine @ 22:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I have added citations. Some paragraphs use integrated information but others draw entirely from FFC 9. Iracundus 10:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Rad, this looks great. Related anecdote: I was checking our analytics the other day and i noticed some German forum thread where they were discussing us, and one of the posters mentioned that the background information taken from FFC and books and so on really makes our articles worthwhile. :)
PS: Site is slow as fuck today, i have no idea why...  ♥ kine @ 21:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Where is this German forum thread? Iracundus 09:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the one i was thinking of (see bottom post):  ♥ kine @ 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
For general technology "bubbles" it would serve better to gather or collect them into specific technology pages. They could be organized in listing or accounting ship technologies and further linking to specific technology type pages like weapons. This will reduce the scattering and ease up on the need to write again for each ships. Also this provides better overview of the scattered information from official sources. Almael 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I think ultimately we will have stuff like that, different articles for different ship components and so on. We've already got a few (warp, cannon, &c.), just hasn't been a priority yet  ♥ kine @ 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Just looking over at this, the only thing not sitting right with me in the layout is the data book service history is under 'apocrypha' - surely it belongs with licensed sources? Should DVD features perhaps be under a heading called "behind the scenes"? Vympel 02:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Service history should belong with licensed sources and I have made an edit accordingly. Iracundus 05:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Tool box