Talk:Knightmare Frame

Missing Units

Why is there no mention of Brittania's aquatic KFs? Also, what about the Knightmare of Nunally units? 24.7.201.100 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Same for the Raikou (that big gauss cannon mounted on four Glasgows), although that thing may or may not count as proper KFs. Nautilusfossil 07:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We should definitely put in Gawain, which according to some spoilers on the web, is gonna get stolen by Lulu. It can be piloted by one person, but optimized by two. Obviously, it has insane amount of missiles, as well as two extremely powerful cannon. George Leung 05:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is sitll missing the Portman (Brittanian Aquatic KFs), they Ganymede (Frame used at the high scool to make the pizza), the Chinese Knightmare Frames, and the Raikou (Made of 4 Glasgow's holding a big cannon). 24.7.201.100 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I could take care of the Raikou and the Knight Police mechs. I have other things to take care of first... 70.68.55.148 07:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese KFs are called Gan Lius, as least that's what I've heard. IMO, not much info is available aside from having anti-KF/personnel machine guns. Ominae 08:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Done the Knight Police stuff. I could do Raikou by a few days. Ominae 05:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested if there was more on the Gan Lius. Are they really KFs proper, or something of a transition between the tanks and the mechs? I ask because I don't recall seeing arms or legs (or, conversely, I saw what might have been three fairly stationary legs). Also, any word on what those giant tan things were in Area 18/Serbia? Are these two models related somehow? It also seems Schniesel's guys have a unique model. What are those shoulder-mounted things?

Toudou's Unit

What was the name of Toudo's custom unit? I think it was named after a Knight who betrayed the real-life Lancelot. -- Psi edit 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Toudo pilots a Custom Gekka episode 17 onward, and a name is not mentioned. Episode 18 shows the Gawain in the OP, but I don't think it deserves mention in the article yet, as we have no specifications.

The DS game does refer to it as the Gekka Custom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.215.181 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold your horses...

The Gawain has not yet appeared on the KF page on the official website. Moreover, the magazine scans featuring it aren't particularly verbose on the matter and discussion about it is cluttered with speculation - like the fact that Gawain has 'insane amounts of missiles'...which is untrue. The only scan I saw showed two hadron cannons and Slash Harkens on the fingertips (yes, you read that right...the fingers are actually Slash Harkens)...aside from that, no specifications. So, until data pops up, please refrain from posting what has NOT been confirmed or seen yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.247.166.172 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Incomplete Guren Nishiki entry?

Although it isn't mentioned in the article, the Guren is occasionally seen in the series using some sort of dagger-like weapon in its left hand. While it's not apparent in every battle, it's quite distinct in its first appearance at the Battle of Narita; while clearly designed for the Guren, it does not appear to be incorporated into the Knightmare itself. I don't know what it's called, though, and thus any information I add to the article would look out of place; rather, I ask this article's main contributors or any others who have access to the information sources used for this article to please confirm and verify this information and add it to the article. 70.118.112.83 04:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

With the new Aerial Type Edition; an image that reflects the Guren's new capabilities should be added; not one which merely shows the Radiation Arm of the Guren Nikishi; which could probably be assumed to be taken of the first season. (ShushKebab (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

Tonfas in Knightmare Frames?

Are they the "tonfas" or just blade-like weapons since the Knight Police frames use combat knives... Just want to clarify this position. Ominae 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zero Burai.jpg

Image:Zero Burai.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CODEGEASS02.jpg

Image:CODEGEASS02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gawain

The Gawain does not actually have Landspinners.

It uses the Float System to move around.

ok screw that, i just watched the ep where he gets gawain and it does indeed have them... they must have removed them or something later. changing it back now. 68.238.83.27 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

68.238.83.27 (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone put info about a new Gawain model kit showing a new design, so it still survives in R2. I've yet to see a picture of the redesigned Gawain, so I've deleted the false info.

Lost Colors mechs?

What about the Lancelot Z-01 Club and the prototype Gekka? Should we add them too? Ominae (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

New Mechs on R2 Website.

http://geass.jp/world_04.html?pid=mecha_13.html - Portman II
http://geass.jp/world_04.html?pid=mecha_15.html - Akatsuki - New Japanese Mass-Production Type, based off of Gekka. Shiseiken has their own custom versions.
http://geass.jp/world_04.html?pid=mecha_14.html - Zangetsu - Toudou's new custom machine.
http://geass.jp/world_04.html?pid=mecha_16.html - Shenfu - Chinese Custom Knightmare
http://geass.jp/world_04.html?pid=mecha_18.html - MR1 - Ashford Knightmare, used in episode 5.
http://geass.jp/world_04.html?pid=mecha_03.html - Lancelot Conquestor (Lancelot with Hadron Blaster and Float Unit Equipped)
http://www.geass.jp/world_04.html?pid=mecha_01b.html - Guren Portable-Type --Robtf (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Get Rid of All the DS PiCs and instead put up the one's of the anime

The mechs only in lost colors should not have pics with them becasue they are not part of cannon. They should be seperated from the rest.

Guren Flight Capable Typle, Lancelot Conquiesta, and ShenHu should have pics respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.225.211 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Zangetsu and Reorganisation.

I'm of the belief that the Zangetsu should not be grouped under the Akatsuki. While it is more than probably true that it's based off the Akatsuki, by that same logic the Akatsuki should be sub-categorised under the Gekka as it is obviously based on it. It's the same with the Gekka, which is obviously based on the design of the Guren and therefore be sub-categorised under the Guren though the same logic. Zangetsu for all intents and purposes is considered a seperate machine from Akatsuki on the official website, it should at least be given the same respect for this article.

Onto my second point, the Britannian models section seems to be an organisational mess, it seems to be in the order of appearance but this is contradicted by the fact that the Lancelot, which was actually the third to appear, is listed first. Sub-categorising "Vincent" under "Vincent Prototype" is also quite odd, since it should actually be the other way around. I propose listing all custom machines (with the exception of custom versions of mass-production machines) at the end while mass-production models are listed first, similar to the way the Japanese models section is organised. Robtf (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Zangetsu is also listed as a different Knightmare on the official site. Unlike the Atkatsuki and Vincent entries, which both connect to other versions. — Fudozukushi (talk) 0:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Vincent - Guilford's Unit.

It can't be confirmed that all Vincents are in the color of Purple & White; so the page regarding the Vincent should be edited to reflect that all the mass-production Vincents may have a different color to them. (ShushKebab (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

Knightmares put in order

The KF in this article must be placed in order of both its model's series & apperance.

The paragraph of the Brittanian models looks jumbled up, because you don't know which model begun with. The Glasgow should be placed first, because it was its earlier generation models. After that was the Sutherland, then the Glousters, then the Portman, then the Lancelot, then the Gawain, then the Seigfried, then the Tristan, and then the Mordred.

The Japanese models should be placed in order of apperance. The Burai should be placed first, because the Japanese Knightmares started with that, after that was the Guren, then the Gekka, then the Akatski, and the Zangetsu.

Why jumble them? SilentmanX (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jumbled to you, maybe, but not to readers. Readers trying to find something will have to sort through a mess of nonsensically arranged (from their point of view) items to find a singular entry, whereas alphabetical order is viewer friendly. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jumbled to me as well. For an article that functions just as much as a fictional tech timeline as it does a listing of different mechs, it should probably stay consistent with the former. All these frames have enterences into the story somewhere, rather than just appearing on screen while having always 'been there' in the continuity. Alphabetical ordering is fine for a list, but this is much more than a simple list. Each of these mechs comes with it's own story of how it entered the series. -Biokinetica (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Once you pass the Glasgows, all you have is an assortment of more or less random mechs only arranged by episode introduction, which is never a good way to organize content. If you want a timeline, that's better for the mech history section, which does at least lay out the first few Brit models. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

Images enhance the article's topic as they have a visual description of the topic presented. As for having a large number of them, I believe that the overall consesus is that because almost every knightmare is different, a different image is necessay to talk about each one. Otherwise, the wikipedia information about the individual knightmares rendered significently less informative or valuable, and as a result the article would rendered quite pointless, and readers would able not get what they wish from it.

Images in this article are used for informative purposes for people researching about hypothetical robots in fiction or information about the anime.

fair use rational must be discussed individually for individual images.

24.147.106.153 (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They can't be used. Be glad you got to keep them as long as you did. List of Code Geass characters got hit for the exact same reason. Wikipedia:NFCC disallows such rampant fair use. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

jesus fucking christ get your bureaucratic nonsense out of here and put the pics back on, who gives a flying fuck

People. Very persistent people. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This will just force people to make separate articles for many of the individual items. JohnWycliff (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... cause that will work /sarcasm. They'll get redirected, back to square one. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you call this and numerous articles like it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-001_Gundam_Exia . I can already see one for the Lancelot, Gawain, Sutherland, Glouster, Vincent, Mirage, Gekka, Guren, and Shenhu JohnWycliff (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because other crap exists doesn't mean it'll work here. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all its not crap as its very informative and the quality and the depth of wikipedia pages. Second of all, if you are not the deciding editor of this page. If you abuse your privilages, I'll report you. When actions are taken that people disagree with, sometimes look at practicality and wikipedia standards of course, but actions such as moving pages and deciding what images stay while others go is not to be decided unilaterally. JohnWycliff (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: That's what "crap" means. Now, to the rest of your comment. No, I'm not the deciding editor. However, I do not have to be to remove the images. I can remove them as many times as I see fit, and even break 3RR. Images can't be on lists, period. This has been a standard for a while now, and no amount of complaints will change that. Neither will your wikilawyering. As for reporting me, you may try, but in the course of this discussion you've already admitted that you would create articles solely to put a picture in them. You have already sabotaged your own position. You might as well drop this, because if you don't want to listen to me, I know a bunch of other editors who'd tell you the exact same thing. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The dude wants the pictures because they make the article complete, better, etc. He is the kind of persona that wants to make Wikipedia just a little better, the fact that we want pictures in the articles is not because of whims dude. What do you mean with "sabotaged your own position"? He hasn't. I think you are BITCHING a little too much, even of you are not abusing you should change your attitude towards people working for this site you know, they deserve some respect for having interest and spending their expensive time on this "free" encyclopedia. Yeah, using images in lists is not allowed (god knows why the fuck) and that's what you ought to make clear, not that you are god knows what and you can remove stuff and whatever. (Sunsetterxxx (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)).

I made it clear in my first statement. It isn't my problem if he doesn't want listen, nor is it my obligation to explain things to him in detail simply because he's overreacting and making threats. He's been here for a year, he should have an idea of how things work by now. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to make this clear. What I am against is your authoritarian approach to handling the article/page. At first, I merely stated what a probable course of events might be that almost always happens when pictures are removed. People feel less need to create separate articles when pictures are there. Go figure why. The answer's not written in stone. What you replied was that you would unilaterally redirect new articles created without A)considering the merits of such an article B)considering the reaction of the community. This is what I am against. That was completely wrong for you to say - for the reasons I mentioned above. Adding sub articles to this article is not necessarily wrong, depending on how its done; indeed, adding pictures (to enhance the information presented)can be part of the motivation for creating the article, because in the end purpose doesn't matter; what matters is the result and the method - how the result enhances the information presented by wikipedia and justifies its existance without breaking the rules is more importent than whatever purpose for which the article was created. What I said still stands - if you take following up with your threat or use a consistent authoritarian approach to delete or redirect other people's work without A)considering the merits and B)considering the reaction of the community, I will report you for overabusing your privileges as an editor. JohnWycliff (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have considered the merits. They can't stand on their own. The characters can, maybe, but certainly not their mechs. You use a lot of fancy words in your post, but all you're trying to do is get the images back through roundabout means. I don't see a community reaction here. I see the common result of such removals: editors who edit very little and very specifically pop up to protest what they see as an injustice (substitute whatever term you feel appropriate, the point is that you see it as wrong somehow). They run through various common attempts to argue the inclusion of the images, but the ultimate result will be the same. I've seen it several times before, so forgive if I'm being fairly rigid about this. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

the page looks like shit without images. on any other site you would see images. it looks bland and unprofessional.

I don't disagree with that assessment, but it doesn't matter. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not governed by its aesthetic appearance. Unless there is a GOOD reason why the pictures should be here aside from "it looks nice," the pictures are not needed and therefore not featured. the_one092001 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we ignore Rogue Penguin, and we will keep trying and trying and trying, until either it got flagged or whatever — Then we try again. As Charles had said, all those rules are nothing more than a bunch of lies in order to protect the interest of those the rules favor them. Edit wars will happen, no matter what; articles will always reverted, deleted, but then recreated. THAT is what I see all the time, and for that alone I appreciate the system of Wiki. Of course, since I am lazy in making the pictures, I am not bothering adding them to the article. On a sidenote, I think it's beyond reasoning now between the two camps.George Leung (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• This qualifies as being intentionally disruptive to prove a point, which is against the guideline set forth in WP:POINT. Edit wars do happen, but they should be avoided and we should not be making an effort to START one. Any images you post WILL be deleted by someone. Putting them back and engaging in an edit war will only bring out the sysops who will also DELETE the pictures, because they realize the lack of notability. Compare this list to List of Cosmic Era mobile units or Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion. Both have established notability, but neither have images posted except user created pictures of the model kits. the_one092001 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How thrilling to see Wikipedia continue to destroy its own usefulness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.1.184 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So if I were to draw images of each individual mech, there would be no problem in placing them in the article. Is that what your'e saying? GETTA GET (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that would still be fair use, as would any depiction of the copyrighted forms of the mecha in this series. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by fair use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GETTA GET (talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAIRUSE. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question on Non GX-01 KMFs

Is there enough information to put them in the page, aside from being 7th generation models and are experimental models with Geass conduits? Ominae (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Raikou's a weapon

I've just notice a new section was added, Raikou. I must say that Raikou is a weapons support unit, not an actual Knightmare Frame nor a Knight Giga Fortress. So should an article of Vehicles and Support units be made? SilentmanX (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Raikou is four Knightmares made into a cannon. It's fine for the page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this very much. It seems more like a cannon welded onto four knightmares. But http://www.geass.jp/first/world_04.html lists it under the japanese knightmares. Go figure. JohnWycliff (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I got an article for the Vehicle and Support Units here. See if you can improve it before it can be released. If you want me to release it right now then let me know. SilentmanX (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We already have a list of the important ones. The list is redundant. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Explain 75.68.225.211 (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

All the ships and such are on the settings page, and the trailer, tanks and such don't require explanation. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

fukushahadō to "radiation wave"

Should we change fukushahadō to radiation wave as per this page? I also posted the same comment on Talk:List of Code Geass characters. - plau (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. The current word just seems like a botched translation job, if that's what the official site calls it in English that is the term we should go with. 86.134.157.176 (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets just wait until the episode airs. - plau (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Marianne Lamperouge

Is Lamperouge the name she used as the pilot of the Ganymede? If not under the Ganymede it should list her as Marianne vi Britannia not Marianne Lamperouge. --The Virginian (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

She became his wife after becoming famous, not before. Lamperouge is the accurate surname. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Guren Aerial-Type" to "Guran Flight-Enabled Version"

As of now, before the release of the Code Geass R2 dub, the "紅蓮可翔式" has thus far been known as the Guran Aerial-Type (which is only a fan translation). Should it be changed to Guran Flight-Enabled Version in light of the events of episode 12? Also, I think "Radiation Wave Surge System" sounds better than "Radiation Wave Surger", should we change it? - plau (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In order, yes and no. The official translation, though it feels a bit lengthy to me, is the right one to use. As for surge system vs surger, dub takes precedence, and its not that big of a difference (like technical vs commoner terms). — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise with the latter, surge system would be the overall mechanism. Surger would be what you'd call the weaponized version. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Burai Kai -> Burai Custom?

I believe the dub called the Burai Kai used by Tohdoh and the Four Holy Swords the "Burai Custom" instead. Shouldn't it be changed like the fukushahadō -> radiant wave surger switch? the_one092001 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a complete rewrite

This article needs a complete rewrite, as it currently stands, it pretty much fails every requirement of the MOS. Most notable - large elements of the article treat this technology as real rather than as an object of the narrative. I've refrained from commenting at the AFD because clearly there are some good writers here who can turn this article around. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As odd as it sounds, THIS is the tag that this article needed! In-universe style needs a cleanup tag, not an AfD tag. the_one092001 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD isn't a tag, so to speak, but it could use rewriting. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider it to be one of the possible actions that can be taken with articles in need of rehabilitation, so I consider it along the same lines as a cleanup tag in that it pushes for some sort of action to be done with an improvement-needy article. the_one092001 (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I could clean it with some sort of example from a similar entry. I'm not so good at going from scratch. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The first thing that it's the most difficult to grasp is that you shouldn't mention every version of this technology - you should talk about things in a generic sense giving notable examples where needed. Long lists of fictional weapon loads and the like are a bit of a no-no. Remember it's suppose to be an article in a General reader's encyclopedia not a fan's encyclopedia. If people are happy with it, I will have a go at cutting it and if people are unhappy, they can revert it - no questions asked and we can discuss why they were unhappy. How does that sound? --Allemandtando (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I first read this as a non-fan who was simply interested to know if this was a series worth watching. Then and now I still find this to be a valuable resource that doesn't devolve into the realm of fancruft while still remaining informative. There are several models that can be used depending on the number of units listed. Considering the number here, I recommend the Gundam 00 style. Biggest thing I think is to add infoboxes, which helps cleanup the page significantly.the_one092001 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems and suggestions

Ok - this is worse than I first thought - there isn't really anything to save here - maybe four or five paragraphs of material. here are the main problems:

• overview - Completely in-universe - needs to be re-written to explain what the frames do as an object of the narrative - so for example - The frames represent the main vehicle used by characters within the series, their use can be seen as analogous to tanks during ww2'.

• History - Completely in-universe - Either needs to be completely removed or turned into a single paragraph.

Again, I must stress that the Knightmare Frame is a fictional concept, whose entire existence is in-universe. I've done some searching and what I've found is that almost all major articles regarding major fictional works on Wikipedia have sub-articles that detail impotent themes, characters, ect. In almost all of these articles, at least 90% of information is in-plot. I mean, can anyone explain to me why an article on Zion (The Matrix) or List of ships in the Matrix series should not have almost its information to relate to the The Universe in The Matrix, or why the article on Edmond Dantes should relate to something besides The Count of Monte Cristo. Their relevance to the Universes they are in is the only reason they are relevant in and of themselves. Can we just tell these articles to delete themselves or to fill themselves with needless information? Just like there needs to be subarticles whose sole purpose it is to detail the real world, a complex fictional world deserves to have sub-articles whose sole purpose is to detail it and its complexities. These facts are commonly accepted by editors on Wikipedia, because that's what the vast overwhelming think is logical. According to WP:NOT#Plot, it states, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them." The vast majority of editors who edit information about fictional universes believe that in order for wikipeida to be a useful and good encyclopedia, subarticles regarding fictional universes deserve should exist and that there is not a great need for them to contain information that is not in universe. After all, it is important to note that WP:INUNIVERSE is a guideline and not a policy. Using common sense, one would realize that topics like the Knightmare Frame have little real world significance and are there merely to help detail important aspects of the Code Geass Universe. Real-world related information and perspective is unnecessary.JohnWycliff (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• The rest - there is absolutely no need to list every model - this should be a prose section that provides a generic overview of the technology with notable examples - lists are a no-no and prose such as They aren't quite as effective as the Maser Vibration Swords on Britannian Knightmares, but are able to block them nonetheless. needs to be scrubbed. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Help needed - I am rewriting the frame section in my sandbox but need help from subject experts. please take a look and edit as needed. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on no need to list every model, and the OR comparisons certainly need to go. Beyond that, all I can recommend is to look at the organization of some GA character articles to get a rough idea of what needs to be done here. (also hope you don't mind, but I shortened the header as it was rather long :P)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree on merging and/or removing some of the models, but reducing the lot to a few paragraphs won't work. Just because they share a general form doesn't make them the same thing, sort of like cars. Let's see how the draft works out. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In real world terms a) how do they differ and b) what makes one model more notable from another - and what independent sources support that analysis? I think you are still missing the point, it's irrelevent in a general reader's encyclopaedia how they differ in the show - we just describe the concept in a generic fashion unless there is something particularly notable about any particular model. Let's be clear about this, if nobody here is willing to do that sort of work - this article will be AFD'd and AFD'd until it's deleted. The wind has changed over the last couple of years - massive in-universe articles just don't cut it anymore. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The wind hasn't so much changed as certain groups have just gotten more vehement in their opposition. However, that is a discussion for another place. The fact remains that this will probably end up kept, and repeat AfDs are often seen as pointy. To the point, it doesn't matter if there's critical commentary on each and every one describing how they are unique machines. What matters is that they are unique within the series, and hence people trying to look up information on this subject should be able to locate a specific named model with relative ease. The bulleted lists can go and they can be trimmed, this I do not disagree with. What I disagree with is eliminating the list altogether, as it eliminates the ability to understand specific parts of the series. Yes, you could turn this into a general article about the design and purpose of Knightmare Frames, but that doesn't help readers. Reliable sources and real-world into are a necessary part of article writing, but they are not a means of content organization, or else we would be deleting most character lists. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a surprising number of "massive in-universe lists" around that haven't been tagged for deletion, or when tagged for deletion managed to survive and be rewritten WITHOUT being cut down to a few sentences. Example 1. Example 2. Example 3. Example 4. Cutting the article down to a few sentences would make the entire article useless and would essentially then guarantee it gets AfD'd continually. The page does need to be rewritten to describe them in a non-in-universe way, no doubt. But slashing the article down to a few sentences doesn't help reader understanding any more than explaining the basic functions of a starship in Star Trek does. The Rogue Penguin is correct that future AfD's will be derided as being pointy unless something happens to the article that REALLY makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia (i.e. COMPLETE lack of sources, blatant OR, nothing but plot, etc.). The way things are going, I do not see this article being deleted, so that gives us more time to rework the page. But it does not need nor should it be trimmed down to only a few paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The one092001 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Other stuff exists just isn't an excuse anyone should be making - we all know the wikipedia is full of the stuff - but so what? let's deal with *this* page and it's problems. Oh and we *should* delete most character lists. If people here aren't willing to do what it takes to bring those articles into line with the MOS and other policies, don't be surprised if the wider community does it for you. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So the response is to be childish in my userspace. I see... --Allemandtando (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF I wasn't trying to be childish. I was writing my comments about the prototypical article in the discussion page, which had not yet been created. I guess it should have been written here instead, but I wrote it there not to be childish but to present a critique of the sample article as it was. WP:BASH also points out that analogy and precedent arguments are perfectly valid, because they reflect the current consensus. Among other major mecha anime shows, the consensus is shown to be that a general (but clean) list of mecha is acceptable. The very fact that people disagree indicate that there is not a unilateral consensus, and the fact that nearly every anime series still has a character list shows that in fact most disagree. In a community run by consensus, I find it difficult how we "should" do something that the majority of the community seems to be against. Deletionism isn't inherently better than inclusionism. the_one092001 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes my mistake, I was 100% wrong about your intentions there and entirely misread the situation - for which I offer my unreserved apologies. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inherently biased towards inclusionism, but that doesn't stop deletions. unfortunately, anime/cartoons in general get the short end of the stick where that's concerned. Let Allemandtando finish whatever he's doing so we can get a good look at his intent. To Allemandtando, I hardly consider the common deletion-minded editors a "wider community", but again that's a discussion for another place, and a similar one's already taking at WP:N no less. For the moment, what we do with this page is a matter of compromise. The list can be kept and reduced. It does not need to go, nor should it if people are to understand the differences between the machines. Your whole idea doesn't have to go through for change to be made. As for the character lists, there's where you and I disagree. In most cases, lists get huge leeway, because like a list of episodes, which has no inherent notability whatsoever, they are a necessary part of content organization when pages reach a certain size. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's do it point by point then - why is it important to list the height of every fictional vehicle? --Allemandtando (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I could care less about the bullet points. I don't mind those being blanked. All I care about is the substance of the entry itself, that the reader is given a general understand of how machine A differs from machine B and their general role within the series. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there go the bullets. Probably should have kept some of the nihongo, but that can be revisited. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

can someone outline in a paragraph or two, at the start of the frames list section - what role they play within the fictional narrative - it sounds like they are the main method of transport for all of the lead characters and within the fictional universe represent the pinnacle of military technology? Thus the development of them represents an arms race between nations? --Allemandtando (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you pretty much hit it on the head, but I only have the history section to go on for that. They're the main form of combat craft, not so much transportation as they only have one seat, and the pinnacle of military technology as you say. Arms race would seem likely, but it should be noted that the rest of the world is playing catch-up with Britannia, which pioneered the design. There's a bit more to say than that, but that's the gist of it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• A traditional arms race as we know it is doubtful, as the 'back-and-forth' that characterizes them is virtually absent. Britannia invaded Japan with the Glasgows before the rest of the world had even started developing one. The Rogue Penguin is right about everyone else playing catch-up, as the EU and Chinese models are currently little more than mobile gun platforms, making them considerably less talented at warfare. By contrast, the mobility of current Britannian frames is on par with the Variable Fighters of Macross; they can mimic human movement perfectly, and curiously require minimal physical manipulation of the controls given how complex the movements are. -Biokinetica (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually the Panzer-Hummels are shown to be superior at long range combat compared to the Sutherland. They're obviously no match for a 7th generation unit like the Lancelot Conquista, but they're at least on par overall with Britannian 5th Generation frames. It can be considered an arms race under the same pretense as the Cold War nuclear race. The US demonstrated the power of atomic weaponry, and the Soviet Union played catch up. In this case, Britannia showed the usefulness of Knightmare Frames and the rest of the world is now playing catch-up. A more definite arms race can be seen between the Black Knights and Britannia, with both rolling out new prototypes to combat each other. The problem is that this is all OR, no sources that can be cited. I'll be away for a few days on a trip, so unfortunately I won't be able to help with the reformatting right now. the_one092001 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Long-range combat" is just having a big gun. That's like comparing mobile artillary to a Gundam. If the weapon's only expectation is to shoot far, then there's no point in it being a bipedal mech, and certainly not a Knightmare Frame as we know them. And I don't think it's true that there are no sources; the episodes themselves are obvious primary sources, as well as the DVD's and their printed material. -Biokinetica (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Although Wikipedia is not a forum, I will say that Panzer-Hummels have a few advantages over standard ground vehicles. They're more agile, since their legs allow for lateral movement and movement over uneven terrain. They also pack all that firepower into a unit that only requires a single person to man, as opposed to a tank which requires 4-5 people to crew. However, given the current state of armored warfare in the real world, there is no point in Knightmare Frames in general. Current tracking devices are good enough to allow targeting locks several kilometers out, and the small-caliber weapons of Britannian Knightmare Frames are useless against modern tank armor designed to withstand 120mm HEAT rounds. Melee attacks using lances are also similarly useless unless using a powerful weapon like a Radiant Wave Surger, which could easily simply be mounted on a missile (like it is on the Akatsuki Customs) and fired from a cheaper armored vehicle. Not to mention close air support from the GAU-8 chaingun of an A-10 Thunderbolt Fact is, however, that mecha combat is simply more intersting, and thus standard conventions are ignored or explained to be useless thanks to some plot device (like N-Jammers in Gundam SEED). the_one092001 (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• This article is supposed to describe a fictional technology, not analyze the practicality of it in the real world. You compare the Panzer Hummel and Knightmare Frames with real-world technologies well, but that has no bearing on the fictional universe where the style of warfare is obviously different from our own. Even so, the armor for the real-world weapons you're referring to would be effective at the ranges it was designed for - several hundred meters; but Knightmare Frames are often tens of meters away from their targets, so such armmor would be pointless regardless of thickness. Whether or not mech combat is "interesting" to us in reality is irrelevant, since the broader subject of the feasibility of these machines in our universe is'nt something that should be discussed in this article.

As for the content of the article itself, I would still move to have Knightmare Frames written as superior in combat as every nation without something comparable to a Britannian frame has been demolished in battle. Even the Chinese Federation has recognized the effectiveness of more humanoid Britannia-esque frames. The animation and story arcs seem to support the idea of Britannia's frames being of higher combat capability, as they're the ones winning all the battles. -Biokinetica (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we point that out already in the entry. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article itself doesn't, or if it does, I didn't add it. My thoughts on Knightmare Frame feasibility are my own, based on analysis of what I've seen so far. I never said that the article stated that it was more interesting, that too was simply my opinion of why so many directors choose to use humanoid mecha combat instead of more practical but decidedly less interesting conventional warfare. Modern technology has tracking systems that can find a target several kilometers out and hit it at that range; the Frames should never make it to "tens of meters" with modern targeting systems. CAS planes like the A-10 would tear them to shreds too. The Frames could also not be armored very heavily due to their much larger (and irregular) surface area compared to a standard armored vehicle. Put even a Sutherland against a modern M1A2 and it would be killed with a single well-placed HEAT shot at several kilometers, or cut down by canister or HE rounds at close range. Tank armor is also designed to protect at any range, and increasingly at any angle after experience in Iraq and the increasing prevalence of top-attack weapons like the Javelin. The only parts the Frame could seriously damage would be the treads, but the Sutherland already has the maneverability advantage. Again, this is all OR, none of it should go in the article.
The strength of Britannian frames seems to be largely the result of the plot armor protecting the characters piloting them. During the Europe landings, the Panzer-Hummel forces were clearly seen winning despite Schneizel (a gifted strategist)'s influence. It wasn't until the arrival of the Lancelot Conquista with its nigh-invulnerable plot armor that the Panzer-Hummels were defeated. Kallen's Glasgow took quite a beating as well, sustaining multiple hits while standard Glasgow grunts get killed after a single shot. the_one092001 (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to miss the point; I don't know why you're dwelling on the infeasibility of this fictional technology in our universe, but it's a moot point. To entertain you one last time, I might point out that the "modern technology" (our universe's technology) you speak of that can track anything anywhere was born of our own tech timeline. There's a real good possibility that this tech timeline never existed in the geass universe, as there was never a second world war nor a cold war to follow it. Whether or not the characters are "plot armored" is also irrelevant, because this article won't be in the business of making arguements outside the mechs themselves. As for the individual frames and their capabilities, the Lancelot in particular is a model that was established as 'the best mech' (through both story and mechanical specifications) since the beginning. Whether Suzaku was in it or not doesn't matter; those Panzers were toast. As for Kallen's Glasgow, her mech kept getting limbs taken off with no clear shots to the torso, unlike those Britannian grunts you refer to. It's logically sound that it didn't blow up right away.

Since you yourself acknowledge that this is your personal oppinion and unfit for the article, I don't know why you're making the argument here. I agree that it's OR. However, that's not why I wouldn't include it; but rather, because it doesn't have anything to do with the article itself. The subject of feasibility in our own universe is totally irrelevant. The subject is a fake universe, with fake machines, and as far as we should be concerned, a fake technological timeline.

To Trust not the Penguin, I'm referring to the re-written article-in-progress. I can only assume most of what's here now will be gone soon. -Biokinetica (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That sandbox, as it stands, is more of a guide to cleanup. The article carries the point, so we can scale down without losing it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I said the first time I started this that Wikipedia is not a forum. The basic problem that I have with mecha combat is although it is fun to watch and certainly more exciting that seeing tanks fire at each other from outside visual range, it fundamentally doesn't work. Knightmare Frames and Gundams reverse the fundamental knife vs. gun argument, which is something that exists regardless of technology level as long as one has a gun and a sword, and more so when one has more advanced guns. We've seen vehicles at least equivalent to modern-day combat vehicles, such as traditional tanks, destroyers, helicopters, jets, etc. But they're little more than fodder to mechs with inferior guns. In essence, they've reversed the saying "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" because now the knife is a high-tech katana with Matrix-esque powers while the gun is a misfiring piece of junk. This has nothing to do with technology trees, it's a simple matter practicality.
  Plot armor is irrelevant to this article until citations come out, but the point is that mechs piloted by major characters never suffer 1-hit KO's like redshirt Frames. Look at Lelouch, who has gone up against both Cornelia and Suzaku multiple times in an inferior suit (either a Sutherland or Burai) and come out unscathed (bodily) both times. He's only a decent-at-best pilot, but his plot armor protected him while the average pilots around him get cut down. His mech only sustains damage while those around him get totally annihilated. The Lancelot should have been taken down during Episode 20 of the first season against the horde of Gun-Ru's, but the Gawain coincidentally came to Suzaku's rescue. He also survives Episode 17, when Tohdoh was only a few feet from killing him (instead of simply slicing open his cockpit). Kallen never got any hits to the torso, while everyone else does, according to the Principle of Evil Marksmanship.
  Back to the article, should we really be describing the new Guren and Lancelot models in such detail? The appearance details should not matter, and any speculations as to modified armaments should be removed in my opinion because its OR. the_one092001 (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to trim. With a lack of concrete details about what they do, I figured the differences should be made clear. However, I should point out that it doesn't speculate. The Slash Harken details, at least for the Lancelot, are an obvious change. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Will the bullet-points come back after the series ends —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.195.213 (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The bulletpoints were sick and we had to take them around the back and put them to sleep. They are never coming back. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The new Guren's name

聖天 can be read as shouten/shouden (Ganesha) or separately as 聖 (sei) 天 (ten). We don't really know if it's shouten or seiten until they pronounce it in the show, so why list it specifically as shouten and Ganesha? - Miasmacloud (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Until they introduce the mech, the translation is simply a matter of common sense. Look at its ears. It can always be fixed when the episode airs. For the moment, going with Ganesha is the logical path. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He has a point. I don't think its wise to make any assumptions on the English translation or the phonetic Japanese spelling when the meaning can be ambiguous. Such assumptions are made from the editor's own deductions or conclusions of what is "logical" rather than from a reliable source or from universal consensus. Therefore English and Japanese "names" should be taken out for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWycliff (talk • contribs) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation is almost always a matter of judgement. Include the alternative if anything. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On an additional note, is there any reason why we are calling fukshahado, radiant wave surger instead of radiant wavesurger or radiant wave-surger? I believe the wavesurger/wave-surger is one idea whereas writing it as wave surger makes it seem like it's two separate ideas.JohnWycliff (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Official summaries spell it as such, that's why. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than trying to fill this article with information on mechs that might not be introduced for several more episodes, why don't you focus your efforts on improving the stuff that's already here? It seems like this article gets worse every time I look at it, and if it doesn't improve, I'll be pushing for a heavy trimming or a merge next time it gets listed for AfD. Wikipedia is NOT a race - the world isn't going to end if you don't add an entry for every new mech within twelve hours of it being revealed on the official website. Inane quibbles on the exact grammar of the translation of the name of the Guren's weapon is even LESS appropriate for Wiki - the only people who really care are people writing websites or articles about it (in fact, this is the first time I've EVER seen it called "radiant wave surger"). If even the large majority of fans don't really care whether you put a space between the words, then the laymen we're supposed to be writing this article certainly won't. It's not that hard to cook up a few paragraphs about Knightmare Frames from an out-of-universe perspective, but I figure if I can do it, then one of you folks can tear yourselves away from checking the Geass website every day long enough to do a BETTER job than I can. It'd be nice if someone bothered to CITE the Newtype articles they find as they comb the web for new Geass-related info, too. Gelmax (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than register to complain, you could try to do what you suggest yourself. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We care about how the the radiant wave surger is named because there is a little known thing called factual accuracy, something which evidently Wikipedia strives for. The correct name is radiant wave surger, as three words with no hyphens, and that is the official spelling. Regardless of how it might look better as two words or with a hyphen, the official spelling is without either of those and it will be listed here as such. If you haven't seen it called the radiant wave surger, then you haven't watched the dub or checked the official site. Same thing with the Toudou vs. Tohdoh and Ougi vs. Ohgi debate on the characters page.
I doubt this article will be up for AfD any time soon, and unless the entire mecha community experiences a massive change of consensus regarding mecha lists, it won't be merged. The result of the last AfD was that the article needed to be trimmed, and that is what we are in the process of doing, while trying to avoid cutting out everything. the_one092001 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't justify the original comment that started this thread of discussion. Besides, there isn't really any such thing as factual accuracy when it comes to translations anyway. When it comes to anime, even official materials are often contradictory. And, to be honest, I forgot there WAS a dub. I think that alone should explain why I'm giving advice here rather than trying to fix the article myself. Gelmax (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The man's entitled to his question. Complaining because of the perceived triviality of it is wasting time. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm complaining on principle. Wikipedia's rules and policies are generally hostile toward articles detailing fictional universes and anime universes in particular, and it's all too common (especially when it comes to mecha lists) to see articles which have been badly affected by related AfDs but never fixed up, for people to pour immense amounts of effort into including every little detail without even thinking of actually bringing the article into compliance with the rules, and for an extremely poorly-done article to go virtually unmaintained except when dozens of people show up to defend it from an AfD. I've always disapproved of updating Wikipedia articles with stuff as soon as it's announced, before there's really any confirmable INFORMATION to post, and doing it when the article just survived an AfD, two other editors pointed out major issues that need to be fixed, and the major editors of this page have acknowledged that this article needs REAL improvement points, isn't really something that inspires confidence. Gelmax (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To weigh in here, (and to maybe start working on improving articles myself instead of defending them) I understand Gelmax's point to be that in comparison to improving the article as a whole, grammar issues pale in comparison, especially when that grammar is agreed by all sides of the discussion to be subjective until official material is released to clarify it. He also has a point that people regularly add information, and defend said information, without ever bothering to cite a source that would have nullified any concerns about accuracy. To summarize; it's fine to work on grammar, but arguing about it shouldn't be a top priority compared to improving the article as a whole. Now I just need to follow my own idea. Westrim (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the discussions here we would never have if this was not article about a cartoon. But who's to say that a cartoon is less or more significent than anything else. "Oh noooo!!! People are trying to make an article with better grammar and more appropriate translations!!! Oh noooo!!! They are trying to be up to date about an ongoing project and they want to include a broad range of information information in an encyclopedia!! They are fanatics!!!!" JohnWycliff (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That deals a bit more with notability, which is even more subjective. Too often people confuse a lack of notability with something they simply don't care about. I don't care about most sports, but I don't go around tagging them all with AfD just because I don't like them and therefore think there is no notability. We're doing what we can here, and grammar fixes and spelling corrections are the easiest and most universally agreed upon things that we can do, since more major changes will undoubtedly bring up major debates like this one.

Right now, the only major source we have in English is the website, because as far as I know the manga hasn't yet been officially translated into English yet. Given that, we've been using the website's translations of names and weapons. We've already cut out all of the old bulletpoints that listed useless technical data, and merged variants of similar units (such as the Lancelot variants into the main Lancelot article). Now those entries themselves need to be trimmed down and written in an out-of-universe style. the_one092001 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Io Knightmare Frame

There probably isn't enough information to have an actual entry, but are there any details on the Io prototype Knightmare Frame, enough to include with the development of the Ganymede at least? I remember in one of the picture dramas, Milly and Nina's grandfathers worked on the development of both prototypes, but that's all that has been mentioned. 24.84.218.226 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen that, but since we've never seen, otherwise heard of, and have no information on that frame, listing it would be relatively pointless. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Siegfried Knightmare Frame

I wish the edit summary had more space. So: no, they popped out of the water all by themselves despite the extensive damage, and neither Jeremiah (cyborg with a Geass canceler) nor the frame (electrified hull)were changed at all.Westrim (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We're never told how he escaped, so to say he was saved is speculation. Experimentation is likewise wrong: they're modifications on an existing thing. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So the canceler was only a modification? Of what? I'll take the unknown escape method, but both he and the frame were experimental platforms that continued to be used as such once the directorate had them. Both had several more new features than the ones I mentioned. Westrim (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Jeremiah himself calls it a modification, yes. Also, the Siegfried is experimental, but it isn't an experiment to add new features. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If putting in the canceler wasn't an experiment, what is? It doesn't have to be either modify or experiment, it's both. However, experiment is more accurate and valid, unless they deployed all of the features used in the two before. As an example, the float pack of the first Lancelot was an experimental modification; on the Conquista it is a standard modification. Both are mods, but only one is experimental. Following that, any experimental test bed is also an experiment (thus the term), so Jeremiah, with the experimental modification of the canceler and cyborg parts, and the Siegfried, with the experimental modified hull, are still experiments (unless cyborgs are standard in Britannia). And it is an experiment when those features haven't been used anywhere else, ever (again, to our knowledge, which all of this is). Being experimental isn't a detraction from the effectiveness of either modification. Finally, a real world example. The Honda Civic hybrid was a modification of an existing design, but any automotive engineer will tell you, test bed or not, that it was an experiment until such time as it was put into production.Westrim (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that his modifications are explicitly called modifications by both himself and Bartley's team. Making him a cyborg in the first place is an experiment, and the Knightmare is also an experiment. Modifications to an experiment are not experiments, they are modifications. Experimenting implies trial and error, a degree of uncertainy, no such thing applies here. The devices themselves may be experimental (they aren't in this case), but their addition is not. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"The devices themselves may be experimental (they aren't in this case), but their addition is not." Unless there is some example of them being used before, yes, they are experimental- both in the sense of new devices being used for the first time and new conditions to test the devices. They had no way of knowing if the Siegfried's defense system or the canceler would work in real world conditions until they tried them out- that is the definition of experimental. That's why Seigfried and Jeremiah are also test beds in addition to being experiments themselves. As there is no reference to either the canceler or the defense system being used before we see them sent out, there would have been an inherent uncertainty about their effectiveness until tested, which is what we saw happening.Westrim (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, it would be illogical to assume that these modifications were not tested. No reference is made to these things even being added, much less being experimental. In fact, the Siegfried's electrical generators appear to be attached in its first appearance. To assume that they are experiments is speculation. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Images part Deux

Erm- I'm a little hesitant to bring this up, considering the vitriol in the previous discussion, but should we reexamine whether more images should be on here? At the very least the representative picture up top should be changed- it's a bit small, and would probably be better replaced by a picture of a single knightmare, instead of a group of the same type. I don't think we need that many images, just the major players and the three or four primary mass produced types. This all occurs to me because lately I've only seen it through the revision notes, but looking at it as a regular browser it frankly looked boring and uninformative. If anyone watching the show wanted to know more about what they saw but didn't know the name, they would never find the right knightmare. I generally stay away from images as I don't care to deal with copyright issues, but I think this article really needs them.Westrim (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lists are very hard to justify images for. If you can find a promotional group shot or something, you might be able to use it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Darn. If I thought it was allowed, I would delete the moron above, but I guess he's entitled to his opinion. Please ignore him Rogue Penguin, and my apologies.Westrim (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is allowed. He's just trolling. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good.Westrim (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Guren's weapon arsenal

On the final episode of R2, episode 25, during the battle with the Lancelot Albion, the Guren shoots what appears to be missile-like projectiles mid-fight. Are these missiles simply the Gefjun net pods that were on the Guren Flight-enabled version, or were the pods replaced with missile launchers? Kesa 'Borosee (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Eighth Generation = Knights of Round?

I see that someone has seen fit to put all the Knightmares of the Knights of the Round as "Eighth Generation" knightmares. Can a source be found behind this, or is it blatent OR? I'm removing the references as and when I have patience, the best we know of is either to put them as custom 7th gens or just as custom frames and leaving the generation number out at all. As far as I know, no frame was ever said specifically to belong to the 8th gen, and the only time any number appeared above 7th gen was in Episode 21 when referring to the Lancelot Albion (though obviously this doesn't exclude the Guren MkII). I don't see any basis for labling them as eighth gen other than inference and Original Research, unless there is some source somebody wants to bring to light 81.111.115.63 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the "Code Geass R2 The Complete" official guidebook has a chart about Knightmare Frame evolution.

See here:

http://atashi.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/code-geass-r2-the-complete-official-guidebook-review/

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/9069/sdc10116sv1.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f356/AmuroNT1/Code%20Geass/Lineart/KnightmareChart.png

It seems to include the KoR frames as 8th generation while Guren SEITEN and Lancelot Albion are confirmed as 9th. Gawain is listed as 6th and Shinkirō as 8th. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough indeed, they should be readded, and this time with proper sourcing to ensure that they stick. Sadly that was not the case first time around, but this time we can get it right now we know where this is coming from.81.111.115.63 (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

All installed, I've tried to more or less set it up in the referencing; if you find any other cool sources bring them forward, it'll help make sure nobody flags this page for deletion of lack of sourcing again. Kyteto (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Section Split

The Britannian models section has become considerably large, with a large number of mass produced and especially custom knightmares listed throughout the two seasons. I've been thinking that it might be more effective to catagorise them into a pair of subsections to Britannian models; entitled Custom models and Standard models. Let me know what you think, obviously I won't change this arbitrarily. And the alphabetical ordering system I do not plan to change, simply running within thier own catagories as it currently does. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made the adjustment, but obviously this is very rough. It needs a few presentation alterations, and it would be good to here other people's opinions on this, as well as possible directions. Before you say it, I'm not going to be doing these with the Japanese or other knightmare frame portions, as they are nowhere as big or as cluttered as the Britannian section is/was. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I've done a great deal of interlinking now, all the major work has been complete, as ever you are free to leave a comment upon the improvements that have been made.81.111.115.63 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Needing additional referencing

Can I ask any interested parties in the well being and better completion of this page to help expand the formal references? We're managed to hit a milestone today of having a total of twenty references+notes in the latest revision of the page, but I know it can be better. If you don't know how to use the reference code properly just post the source rough if you have to and I or someone else will come along and tuck it in properly. The more varied and unfamiliar sources the better, I've been doing my best to add many outside of the episodes themselves, such as the merchandise sphere behind the franchise ect. It would be great to get some snippets of the article based around the ideas and reflections coming from reviewers for example, though that can be a struggle. It would be a real treat if we could make more references other than turning simply to the episodes of the show or the offical site, and would help make this article shine. Kyteto (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Over the last five days I've searched high and low and dragged the total amount of references up to 35. Considering the main page for Code Geass has 45, this seems like a good number; so I'm going to remove the "needs citation" tag from the page. Obviously, do try and find things to add to the page still, the more the merrier and all. Would be great if new angles could be found that I or those who came before didn't recognise and added to the page. I would like another editor to evaluate the work at some point, hopefully someone who won't tear it all apart. Thanks. 86.154.202.21 (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Tackling the "In-Universe" problem

I'm going to create a "Reception" section on the page, basically how fans and reviewers have reacted to the knightmares in particular. Notable fan favorites, obvious comparisons to Gundams (all with references), and other such things I can think of. This won't rectify the problem, but it'll go some way to putting this in perspective as a tool of fiction, something which the people who wanted to have this page deleted used in their arguements; so we should put some effort into suggestions like this or other means to increase the real-world relivance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyteto (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The reception section is up but needs work. Please don't delete it if you think its a bit drabby, try and improve it instead. 86.155.132.194 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Things like blogs and user videos do not count as reliable sources for this sort of thing. Reviews like ANN are better, but even that is being phased out. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How else does one judge fan's reactions and judgements upon the knightmares and their context in the series? It is a little hard to know the people from a formal pedestal. I would prefer it if you helped me find good, decent sourcing instead of wiping it off the face of the earth. There is potential, and relation, but I'm struggling with the sourcing for highly obvious reasons: the views of small people are rarely carved in stone tablets. 86.155.132.194 (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The opinions of self-published fans aren't considered important. Among your links are one to a forum, where any Tom, Dick, or Harry can post anonymously, and the others are no better. It does not matter if fans are divided between this and that, unless some larger source points it out. For example, an interview with a voice actor or something would be appropriate. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree that obvious comparisons, such as the repetative comparisons between Knightmares and Gundams should be completely ignored. Maybe there is no formal citation, but in one of your own reasons for removing a reference recently was that "References don't need to cover the obvious" and certainly the Gundam=Knightmare line is well known enough, its been wheeled out in this very talk page, and formally referencing it seems ludicrous. It speeaks for itself in its offical role as being another Sunrise series big on Mecha, as at least worth a single line in the right section. Placing the Knightmares in context with another series would be putting the knightmares (and this page in turn) in a larger realworld context; and more importantly actually do something to comply with the long standing WP:INUNIVERSE tag, something which very little seems to have been done about. Why must you always detract and delete, why not try and find something new and original and add to the page? 86.155.132.194 (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between "humanoid Knightmares have bipedal movement" and "Knightmare and Gundams share many similarities. One is slap you in the face obvious, the other is a personal opinion without a reliable source to back it up. Maybe a see also section that links to Gundams or something since it's a Sunrise series, but that's it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 16:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've currently placed the line "Knightmare Frames are often contrasted with another form of mecha in the Gundam series, the anime studio Sunrise was involved in the development of both series." inside the reception section. That is pretty much objective fact, in that they are often informally contrasted, but are also held up against each other as the two big Mecha works of Sunrise. There is nothing here that isn't obvious. I would ask you to keep in mind the Damocles Sword that is hanging over this page and instead of just bickering with me trying to rework the major problem here of addressing the long drawn Inuniverse tag. We do actually need to make an effort at some point to work on this page's faults.

Let me pose a question if I could do so. What would you suggest to be the most viable direction for forfilling the tag's demand; to address the high level of fictional perspective and putting it into line with the real world? This approach clearly isn't working with you, so is there another way?86.155.132.194 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite an equivalent example, but Nikki and Paulo of Lost is a good example of the sort of setup you're looking for. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue I see here is that the "Reception" section, as it currently stands, has more to do with the series in general than with the Knightmare Frames, which are meant to be the article's subject. What reviewers or columnists may think of the show as a whole doesn't really seem to be the topic here. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

True, it is faulty. But all the other links were mercilessly and pedantically pecked to death; even the unquestionable obvious. All I could do with that remaining scrap was try to put knightmares into a sense of appeal for the wider series, putting them into context to the fanbase. Finding remotely anything coming close to 'citable' in some people's eyes that expresses an opinion about the knightmares is difficult. I tried to address the 'lack of real world relivance' problem and failed to do anything better, and to be honest I'm tired of trying when nobody else appears to be tackling the 600 pound gorilla in the room. (quitter's talk I know) I just don't know what to do with this article anymore, if I should just recommend it for being deleted if it gets put forward for that again. The main problem isn't been addressed, we're 12 month on now and we've gone nowhere on it. We might as well have binned it, because apparently we can't fix the gaping hole. Citation is fixed, but RWR (Real World Relivance) is still unproven and questionable, next time begging for more time is unlikely to work if we've done squat all since round one, even I'm agreeing with that and I want this page to survive...81.111.115.63 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not the article, it is the nature of the tag. The tag is simply inappropriate and should be removed. It has already long been established that articles based on fictional objects or persons will inherently seem in-universe. Speaking of their history inherently makes them seem in-universe. The tag should imply be removed, because it's just a tool used by deletionists to put articles up for deletion that they don't personally like. The issue with the "reception" section is that some of the statements really aren't necessary. Yes, I know, I'm not helping, but to be honest, I was against it to begin with. There is a single possibly acceptable source, as well as a bunch of unsourced and unverifiable statements. We really can't say why people like or don't like the series, nor can we say that they get more attention. the_one092001 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Vincent section blanked

I must ask. Considering that the Vincent is a prominent Knightmare during R2 that sees increasing use, does anyone know why it was blanked, especially without taking the time to delink entries (even within the article) afterward? If there is no valid reason for its removal, could we get a consensus for undoing the blanking and reinserting the section?—WhosAsking (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Old vandalism that no one noticed, but vandalism all the same. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)