Talk:Leonidas

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

Blu-ray rip question

That's interesting, who did the Blu-Ray rip? Is it ongoing?Vympel 14:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

These are taken from the raws being released by 'QTS'. I am not sure if they're still doing it — if they are, they seem to be taking their time. I have only been able to find like the first 10 or 20 episodes.  ♥ kine @ 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Text from Mechanic and Seiyuu

I have another book called Mechanic and Seiyuu that contains a bit of information on several ships. Leonidas is one, here is what it says for its history:

786年 1月     ハイネセン第ーエ廠にて竣エ。
786年 2月 1日     第五辺境星域分艦隊に編入、旗艦となる。
787年 5月 1日     第四艦隊に編入、旗艦となる。
796年 2月 11日     アスターテ星域会戦にて敵艦隊と交戦、撃沈。
796年 3月 1日     除籍

Which means something like (loosely translated):

January 786 UC (477 IC / 3586 CE)     Produced at factory on Heinessen.
1 February 786 UC (477 IC / 3586 CE)     Incorporated into the frontier-bound 5th Fleet as its flagship.
1 May 787 UC (478 IC / 3587 CE)     Incorporated into the 4th Fleet as its flagship.
11 February 796 UC (487 IC / 3596 CE)     Engaged the enemy at the Battle of Astarte; sunk.
1 March 796 UC (487 IC / 3596 CE)     Struck from register.

The pictures shown on each ship's page are of the models, so i suspect that perhaps the information included is taken from the data included with the models.  ♥ kine @ 05:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, note that the Japanese text refers to Astarte as a starzone. I thought it was a planet?  ♥ kine @ 05:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I always assumed Astarte was a Starzone. Hey - since it seems you can basically translate Japanese, if I scanned the booklets that come with Wright Staff fleet file miniatures and provided them to you - you could translate, no? Canary has the one for Vol. 1R uploaded in the forum already, have you seen it? I have it and all the others. And we need a citation code for the Fleet files. It'd be great if we could incorporate that information, because it would greatly increase the length of ship articles in one swoop. :)Vympel 06:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I also thought it was a starzone initially, but the text we brought over from LOGH Wiki says it's part of the Boden Starzone; plus i was skipping through the DVD and noticed that the subtitles just say 'Astarte' (no 'system' or 'starzone'). :/

Regarding translation: I'm only good enough to translate kana on my own; for the rest i use a combination of kanji dictionaries, Google Translate, Wikipedia, &c. That said, i would be glad to look at any scans you can provide. It just might take me a little while. :) Message me on my talk page, or on the forum, if you want to link me to anything

(Also, regarding citation templates for Fleet File and other licensed works — i'm not sure we need these. Since licensed works are only allowed in Background information and Apocrypha sections, we probably won't be citing them the same way we do with episodes. That said, i can look into it once we start incorporating more things in. For the time being, i would just write it out however you think is best.)  ♥ kine @ 07:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, in terms of citation codes I just think we need them in terms of the ship dimensions at the very least - the fact is that the licensed material is the only source we have for dimensions (apart from the length of a standard Alliance battleship, which is shown in a schematic in MCISS briefly, when Ulysses 'kidnaps' the Brunhild). We can't have 'cleanup required' next to those dimensions forever :) Vympel 07:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and to attest to the accuracy of those dimensions (we really have no reason to believe they're inaccurate, Wright Staff is the official licence holder after all) those for the Ulysess and other standard FPA Battleships conform to the MCISS dimensions, heh. Vympel 07:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

D'oh, I meant dimensions, not length.Vympel 07:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Wright Staff's status as licence holder: Yeah, but there are heaps of 'official' licensed Star Trek books, and they all have contradictory dimensions and things. So it's not necessarily a good idea to rely on them. :/

The way i had envisioned it was this: Any information we have from the animated media, we'd put in the body text. For dimensions and things, that'd be like under a 'Design' section. Then, any further (or even contradictory) information we had, we'd put under Apocrypha, and then say, like, 'According to Fleet File whatever, the Leonidas has the following specifications:'. That was sort of how we had decided on things on LOGH Wiki, because our only 'primary' sources are the animated releases — everything else is either secondary or not allowed.

However, i'm open to any logical suggestions. The only thing i feel strongly about is that we shouldn't mix licensed information directly into the main body text, because if we do that then that opens the door for including manga stuff and everything else, and then it becomes a huge head ache to decide how to address canon issues....  ♥ kine @ 07:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your concern - to be clear, the dimensions and things under the 'design' section by definition *must* come from the Fleet files (with the exception of weapons, which can simply be counted, with case-by-case common sense provisos like "at least x guns" if its ambiguous) - with the exception of the FPA Battleship per MCISS. And as we discussed previously, all the stuff on dimensions for Star Trek comes from background material, and its just generally accepted as correct. Re the fleet file 'fluff' information, I'm happy to keep that out of the main animated series section - but - ehh ...the word 'apocrypha' seems to makes it sound worthless. Should we be making that call in the absence of any information to the contrary? Perhaps call it 'licensed material' instead?

I don't think people putting stuff from the manga is much of a concern - we can simply say that the manga is not part of the universe we're dealing with, and leave it at that. It should be relatively easy to draw a line in the sand about that (though Golden Wings ... well ... ech ....bit tricky). The licensed material I'm concerned about is more that which deals with the clear 'universe' of the animated series.Vympel 07:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Well, maybe. Let's add another thing to Policy talk :p  ♥ kine @ 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that this article's basic structure has been brought 'up to code' more or less, a citation code for the above is all I need to incorporate it into the article! :) Vympel 14:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Made some changes, how does that sit with you?  ♥ kine @ 22:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I had thought we had eventually decided in policy talk not to put licensed material in the apocrypha section, but to put it in the main section with appropriate citation? My original intent was to simply write a paragraph which incorporated that info. Vympel 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Data book - Mechanic and Seiyuu

I've reverted this article back to how kine originally incorporated the data book info for the Leonidas. I think we need to think about how the format should look and how to delineate the official info (please note all that the term 'apocrypha' is not intended to be prejudicial or negative, despite that being one definition of the term - personally I'm still thinking maybe it should be changed, but I dunno). I had originally liked the idea of incorporating it all into the main article, and edited this entry on that basis, but now I'm unsure. Given Iracundus adding similar info in a similar format to Triglav, it inspired me to go back and look at this again. Decisions, decisions! Vympel 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not what belongs into the page but the definition of what kind of information belongs to what section. I think many are just unsure where to put what. We need a sample page with clear definitions and example information. Almael 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Our procedures have been evolving more quickly than i've been able to catch up, so some parts of our policy pages are out of date (one thing i notice specifically is that i put ONW at a lower priority than the OVA, whereas we later decided the opposite), but for the most part at least they should be pretty clear. Here is an almost overly detailed article i created regarding how page sections should be structured: Policy:Sections

Of course if you see anything that really begs to be updated or clarified, please raise the point on Policy talk or the relevant policy page's talk page, or else leave me a message on my talk page, and i'll get around to it eventually. (As i mentioned i'm super busy lately, sorry in advance for my negligence...)  ♥ kine @ 02:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Just thinking about how to best set out the data in the Appendices - subheadings and what not (I'm concerned about there being too many or too few). Could you have a look at Triglav, Leonidas II, and this page, and offer your thoughts on how best to set out the info from the databook / FFCs? Also what do you think of the subheading 'Licensed Information' or something along those lines? Vympel 06:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, originally i'd intended them to have separate sections under Apocrypha, but i guess i could see it going either way. 'Licensed information' doesn't sound good to me, but 'Licensed media' or something might.

Of course if we do that, we'll logically need to combine all of it, including FFC....  ♥ kine @ 09:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did I even say "information" when I typed "sources", lol? I see what you mean re: FFC heading. When playing with the format recently, I was basically thinking of demarcating the nice FFC side-view that I like so much, which is why I kept that. One of the reasons I combined them was because the FFC also has something to say about service history apparently. I suspect this is something that will need to be revisited the more and more stuff is translated from the FFCs etc. Vympel 13:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)