From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki
So I'm slowly getting ready to compare the prologue to Dawn with the timeline, and I am noticing the eras. Um... does anyone know where they come from? The names for each era I originally wrote up were changed, which is fine (it's definitely better that they reflect the European history LOGH is modeled after than Chinese history)... but where I originally divided Imperial history into two distinct eras, now there are three (someone added a "mid" era between "early" and "late")--which begs two questions. First: does Imperial history need to be partitioned into three eras; and if so, where should that era be positioned? It strikes me as odd that the "mid" era should begin with the discovery of the FPA and beginning of the Alliance-Imperial war, as it was that war that led to the end of the old Empire. If the "mid" era is necessary, I would think a better starting point might be Heinessen's exodus, with the discovery of the FPA marking the start of the late era. Canary 22:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think I'm the one who added the "mid" era. I actually have no idea where those eras were from; I merely modified the existing era names and re-shuffled some of the events the last time I edited the timeline. As for the mid era starting from the beginning of the war, my reasoning was that since the timeline is written from the Imperial perspective, it makes sense that the encounter with the Alliance is a much more significant change in their history than the mysterious disappearance of some 400 thousand serfs. Glacierfairy 01:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I pulled the eras out of my ass. Just tossed them wherever they seemed to fit. So, anyway, is there any specific reasoning behind the existence of a middle era at all? Given how little we know about Imperial history between Rudolph and the FPA war, it kinda feels like grasping at straws to segregate imperial history into three distinct periods. Even two periods is stretching it a little bit. Canary 20:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I'm affected by the rule of three, but my reasoning was that the Empire during the Battle of Dagon and the Empire during the Battle of Astarte were two very different entities. In the former, the Imperials expected to destroy the Alliance quickly, and despite their crushing defeat in the Battle of Dagon, overall they managed to keep the initiative for the next few decades. However, this changed dramatically after their overwhelming defeat in the Second Battle of Tiamat, and forced them to consider to be on the defensive for the first time in the war, culminating in their decision to construct the Iserlohn Fortress, which in my opinion marked a new era of war between the Empire and the Alliance. Glacierfairy 01:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Should we auto-hide the contents? It's... awfully long.
- Citations--basically, in the end, every single episode of the OVAs (each series) will need to be cited, as well as the logh encyclopedia... where should these be placed? Lump everything together at the bottom of the page?
- Early era names suck. We need something better than "Hegemony Era" and "Space Era," I think. Canary 14:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Battle of Vermilion needs its link fixed in the Timeline, somewhere in the 799 UC part. Can't change it myself so thought you should know even if it is minor as this is one of, if not the most important pages. Strayor 19:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed =) Glacierfairy 20:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why it was protected. I've semi-unprotected it now. ♥ kine @ 23:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I like the new names for the eras. Good call Glacierfairy. Strayor 13:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Should the timeline page have picutres?
2. Is the first paragraph (describing the timeline) necessary? — Canary
- I have no opinion on the first, it seems like it could be OK either way. I don't think Memory Alpha's time-line pages have them, but i'm not positive. Edit: The year-specific pages do, if there are images available, but most of the 'broader' pages (decades and centuries) do not.
- I don't like the first paragraph in its current incarnation. It's written from a real-life perspective (makes references to the series), which is no good, and the date thing seems self-explanatory. I would change it at some point. ♥ kine @ 01:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: format testing
Hi. I wanted to test something here, and i didn't want to mess with your work, so i've made a copy of this page at Timeline/test. On that page, you can see that i've replaced the manually typed out dates by the -templated dates (and then added some CSS specific to these pages to make it so that the text shows up in the body as well as the tool-tips). I think this has two advantages:
- Obviously it's quicker to type and doesn't require manual calculation of dates
- If we do end up changing the format and/or abbreviations for dates, every one of these lines can be updated instantly (along with the rest of the site) just by modifying the template
Let me know what you think ♥ kine @ 13:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good. I do, however, think it is (vitally) necessary to change the date formatting to something consistent. I'll update the old timeline page w/ the new one I've got saved here. (Re:Formatting--at this point, it's basically just shifting the number and letter positions, removing the periods, etc.) Canary 14:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've finished this page. I think everything looks good, but I'm not sold on the "AKA" stuff. Would you mind removing it? I think it's a bit, you know, obvious. We shouldn't need to go out of our way to state it. And can we embed a link to the Dating Systems page in those? Canary 22:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if some edits could be made to the timeline.
For some reason, which I'm sure is a good one, I am not given the option to update the timeline. I would like to do so to include a few major events that have been left off for some reason. Can someone please either enable the edit function or hear my requests for edits?
PS. I hope I am using this "Add Topic" thing correctly. I deeply apologize if I am not.
- Hi! You are doing fine with the "add topic", although you should sign off every message with this:
~~~~. I have lifted the page protection for now so you can edit it. All the best! Glacierfairy 08:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I have made a few edits and plan on making a few more. This is an amazing site. I hope I can figure out how everything works soon. Lol. Thanks again!
- You are welcome! When you sign off your message, just type the four tildes without using that code I used for demonstration purpose. It will automatically generate your username and the time of the message, like this: Glacierfairy 00:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Ugh! So confusing! Tell me if there are any problems with the edits I made. :) Now let's give this sign off thing one more try! Wade Strine 01:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are doing fine. Keep up the good work! Glacierfairy 03:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)