Template talk:Navbox/vg

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

Legend of Galactic Heroes VII

It appears "Legend of Galactic Heroes VII" is a wrong reference. I think it's what is now known as Legend of Galactic Heroes (2008 game)‎. Whoever introduced that game name please, provide links for verification. There may be other links to fix. Almael 16:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Google 銀河英雄伝説VII and research the results, such as the Amazon result or http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/銀河英雄伝説_(ゲーム) . It was the final 銀河英雄伝説 game released by Bothtec and was released in 2004. Iracundus 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that 銀河英雄伝説VII was developed by Microvision under Bothtec as publisher. However, it was abandoned due to breach of licence. Namco Bandai took it up in 2006 with Microvision as developer again. After some UI changing it became Legend of Galactic Heroes (2008 game). Read here wikipedia.jp. Almael 19:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Some interview that mentions both 20081205080, some other further reading 20081025002. Almael 21:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless it existed as a separate project, a separate title, and a different publisher. It was discontinued after its release due to license issues. Servers went up, then had to be taken down. Thus 銀河英雄伝説VII still stands as a separate entry. Whether or not the 2008 game was based off of it is not relevant to it standing as a separate albeit short lived game of its own. Iracundus 21:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, i had no idea they were related. I knew of the licensing troubles but that was it.

If it is true that LOGH VII went on to become the BANDAI game, and it looks like it is, then i guess we should do what Wikipedia do given similar situations. The first examples i can think of off the top of my head are Dr Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine and Kirby's Ghost Trap / Kirby's Avalanche, both of which were actually rebranded versions of the game Puyo Puyo. Wikipedia keep a separate article for each of these games — i guess we should do the same? Is that a reasonable comparison?  ♥ kine @ 04:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia also tends to put articles together wikipedia articles to be merged or even delete huge chunks of an article e.g. Gundam technologies. It seem to depends more on people's view, though. In any case, at least a redirect link should exist if only just for convenience.

I think this wiki also need to get slimmer. A lot of related articles have parts with roughly same text. The parts could be put & linked into one article or template. Also there is a problem of distinction between information from anime and novels. The anime doesn't give vital background information while the anime information tend to change with each shows. The wiki is about anime so we need to separate into subtopics to highlight the source which will effect analysis. Since I did provide a number of those novel background information I take some responsibility. Btw. it's not that apparent to visitors about the wiki's anime centered policy at all. Almael 11:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict policies regarding scope and notability, which is the basis of many of those requests to merge or delete articles. It doesn't aim to be a comprehensive repository of very very specific things like Gundam technology trivia, so they often prune stuff like that. We don't (yet) have any notability guide lines when it comes to officially licensed commercial LOGH stuff.

That said, i'm certainly not opposed to combining the articles. If you would like to do that, feel free. Will just need to fit it properly in there, giving separate release dates and stuff like that where appropriate. If we decide we need to un-combine them in the future, that's always an option.

Regarding needing slimmed down, i am interested to hear more about your feelings on that. Can you elaborate? Specific examples of things that you consider redundant or confusing would be helpful.  ♥ kine @ 09:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This part of discussion should be moved to site editing convention rules or so.

There are limits to what I can do as an editor. Besides I'm heading several major projects plus some that's why I haven't bothered to become a staff. Because of this wikis policy I rather not share information from the novels until that project has been completed. The same goes for insights and analysis which probably will bother some people because it's research and not canon publications (even if some are in plain sight). This wiki is still all about collection of anime information and related books.

For example articles regarding Iserlohn often repeat same or parts of certain events. Instead of rewriting and having different versions why not just link to the subtopic of the Iserlohn article. Or the ship articles, there are scores of text similar to each other mostly about technology. Why not having an article about ship technologies or some sub topic and link their and only write out the real difference. Of course if templates are used we need a naming scheme for them. Perhaps the wiki needs more organized in order to have a better overview. I certainly don't have atm with 10k+. The number is certainly to big imho, we got hundreds of characters and ships, but not much of anything else. I would expect several thousand maybe but this seems too bloated. For example the technology menu on the left does make no sense. Navies or military assets would be a more appropriate name. For technology i expect something like ship technology, weapons technology, civil technologies etc. Almael 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There are many instances of that sort of repeating, yeah. Same with some of the early battles, the descriptions of which were mostly brought over from the old wiki. Articles should only summarise related events and then link to the more comprehensive articles, as you indicate, so it's definitely not intentional. It's just that a lot of this is organisational in nature, and since i'm the one who focusses on that, and i find those topics boring, i've neglected to sort them out.

What are you referring to when you talk about the technology stuff in the ship articles? I haven't noticed much redundancy in those, Vympel does a good job as far as i've seen.

I also don't understand what you're referring to with I certainly don't have atm with 10k+. The number is certainly to big imho. Are you talking about the raw number of pages on the site? If so, the vast majority of those are redirects and templates for linking to episodes, and should not be visible to users unless they go out of their way to find them. All other templates (except for like three i think) are documented and listed in Category:Templates

The naming of the Technology menu was inspired by Memory Alpha, which lists star ships under 'Tech'. I guess it could be improved though

(Will probably move this discussion to Policy talk later, too lazy now)  ♥ kine @ 14:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's what I remember last time I looked at them. Well, I did create some of the comprehensive templates here so maybe those ship/planet/etc. got better with them by now. *shrugs* Hmm, looks like there's a misunderstanding of conventions between us, because the other wiki's I'm part of only show actual article numbers and nothing else counts. Almael 16:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(resetting indentation)

Oh. If you're talking about the number on the front page, that is definitely counting actual articles only. Templates, policy pages, talk pages, redirects, images, &c., are not included. I'm too lazy to get the full counts right now, but i know it breaks down partially like 350 articles on people, 130 on places, 150 on vessels, 170 on episodes/films, 50 on merchandise, &c. That's almost 900 accounted for there, the rest would be in stuff like technology and cultural topics.

If you go to Special:CategoryTree, you can navigate through the entire hierarchy and see how everything's laid out.

Admittedly this type of stuff should be easier for people to find on their own without having to do that. I had intended to create portals to facilitate this, but never got around to completing that project either...  ♥ kine @ 06:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, special pages aren't meant for navigation by visitors but for editors. If you don't mind I will setup some portals. Almael 10:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free. I can't remember if i made the Portal name space editable by non-administrators, if it gives you any error just let me know  ♥ kine @ 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, can't do. Don't have the rights. It's better that way or anyone could mess things up. I could only create Portal/Directory perhaps I created it wrongly that's why it worked. Anyway, I copied the code from my own wiki so you may need to change the appearance/organization to your liking. Almael 14:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)