Talk:Navigation corridors

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

What the heck it is, that is the thing that it is

Okay... maybe I should have been at my PC when all this happened, but I noticed something odd while going on a bender and watching all of the Gaiden OVAs while hopped up on Vicadin and Tramadol. I'd been considering writing up some "speculation" pages for a while and even discussed it back with kine years ago, to deal with some of the concepts at play in LoGH that we really don't have enough information of to write about--like their FTL method. The closest we ever got to a speculative page was Warp, to give an example. But, anyway (apolgies for rambling) one of the early episodes (the first season of Gaiden, IIRC) involved fleet placement in the Iserlohn corridor--and a plot point involved a fleet being "trapped" by the edge of the corridor. Which generates a question: what, exactly, is the Iserlohn Corridor that makes it such a definite "choke point?" What is it that makes up the "barrier" around it? I can think of several explanations, but none of them seem to cohere well with what we see animated (IE the Fortress appears to exist in normal space).Canary 02:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I understood of the series, the corridor represents a relatively narrow stretch of navigable space surrounded by all sorts of interstellar phenomena which makes navigation into it impossible (rather unhelpfully depicted in-series as some kind of literal barrier that destroys ships on contact). This is what chapter 5 of volume 1 of the original novels (translated by Tracy Chu) has to say about the Iserlohn Corridor: "Within the area densely populated by variable stars, red giants, and abnormal gravity fields, was a sliver of safety; and Iserlohn was enshrined within that haven."

Judging from Murai's comment about Geiersburg Fortress relying on sub-light engines and not warp engines to navigate through the corridor during the Eighth Battle of Iserlohn, we can speculate that the corridor itself is in normal space, and that whatever phenomena that makes its surrounding area a danger zone applies to warp navigation too. Glacierfairy 08:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Terminology

I don't disagree with this article's existence, but is the term 'navigation corridor' ever used in the series? I mean that's obviously a way you could describe it, but i think we should stick to terms they use in the series if possible. If there's not a source for 'navigation corridor', could we maybe make it just 'Corridor'? (The link in the side bar would stay 'Corridors' — i think we have a precedent for keeping side-bar links plural)  ♥ kine @ 00:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Without the "navigation" bit we could be talking about any old hallway. It's... necessary for people to know what the hell the article is about. As for making it singular or leaving it plural... I say keep in plural. As for the precedent of side-bar links... allow me to remind you: it says "Zephyr Particles," not "Zephyr Particle." Canary 08:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean to remind me of, you are simply restating what i've said — there is a precedent for plural side-bar links. The article titles themselves are not plural, and never are in any encyclopaedia (except if it's a word that's never singular or some special case like that).

Wikipedia's article naming conventions point out that this stands to reason in most cases — you are far more likely to link to the singular word (corridor/ship/fortress/planet/starzone) in any article than to the plural, so why would you use the latter in its title?

Fair enough re 'navigation' though  ♥ kine @ 12:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: I misread. As for the page name being plural... I would say that, if we're not going to have separate pages for the Fezzani and Iserlohn Corridors, I think it's necessary. But this isn't exactly a deeply-held conviction on my part.... Canary 13:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's leave it alone for now, i guess. I think plural-ness hinges on whether we consider it a 'list', and we are maybe not far enough along in our content to fully decide that. However, i would like to change it to sentence case — going to do that now  ♥ kine @ 13:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. I think we should approach this page as a list, because ideally it would be a list. Problem is, most of the corridors we see in maps are unnamed, so it'll never be a very good list. Like warp, this is one of those things where we really don't have nearly enough information to work with. Canary 14:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of sources

I didn't even know about the existence of this article until recently, but I note there are no citations in this article, and I have a problem with that. I was just having a discussion on the nature of FTL in LOGH, and this page was cited even though not a word of the following has any solid evidentiary basis in the show as far as I can tell:

"A navigation corridor is a term" That is never used in the show. "describe the route between any two stars by which interstellar vessels can travel, via warp" Never stated in the show. If warp was the sole determinant of the existence of a corridor, why is it that ships literally slam into and get destroyed on the edges of the Iserlohn corridor during sublight battles within it? This is a rhetorical question. "Because warp travel is a very complex process viable routes must be meticulously surveyed and analysed before it can be deemed sufficiently safe for travel" Never stated in the show either. "Most inhabited planetary starzones are part of multiple navigation corridors; generally speaking, the fewer navigation corridors a starzone has access to, the more strategic a position that starzone will have." Again, never stated in the show.

We need to be careful about just speculating. People who haven't seen the show don't know its speculation. IMO, this article should be a page to refer to the Iserlohn and Fezzan corridors - nothing more. Vympel 04:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)