Talk:List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Allelujah's Eyes

I don't think the color of Allelujah's pupils change when his alternate personality surfaces. If you watch closely, he shifts his hair from one side of his face to the other. I suspect that his left eye is gray/blue, and his right eye is yellow, and his hair will always cover one side of his face. I won't change it yet, in case there's footage that contradicts my theory, but let me know what you guys think. 68.148.224.47 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've carefully reviewed the footage frame-by-frame. In all instances, Allelujah's left iris is shown as grey and his right iris is golden. I will edit the page to reflect this, but (of course), if anyone finds an instance that contradicts this feel free to change it back. 24.18.141.57 08:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was the one who put in the color change, but I wrote it that way because I totally didn't catch the hairstyle-change. -Pan Sola 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I only checked because you mentioned the color change in the first place. 68.148.224.47 07:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish Republic

I don't think it's appropriate to link Kurdistan from this until more reliable evidence surfaces in the series... --Koveras ^☭ 12:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On the official website (http://www.gundam00.net/character/index.html), Setsuna's profile states:

内戦が続く中東のクルジス共和国で生まれ育った運命の少年兵。接近戦型ガンダムエクシアのパイロット。 私設武装組織ソレスタルビーイングのガンダムマイスターとして世界紛争撲滅のための作戦行動に従事していく。他者との馴れ合いを嫌い、自分の感情を表に出さないクールな少年。16歳という実年齢より幼く見える。

クルジス共和国 = Kurdish Republic. (Corrected as Pan Sola suggests.) Fallacies 12:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, "クルジス" = Kurdish, "共和国" = Republic. Where did you get "People's" from? -Pan Sola 20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, "Kurdistan" is "クルディスタン" in Japanese Wikipedia. I would think a romanization of the word "Kurdish" would've been "クルディス" or perhaps "クルディシュ" or something, and not use a "ジ" (zi) to represent the "di" that typically is represented by "ディ". It'd be useful in the discussion to have reference of an instance where something phonetically pronounces as "di" is represented with "ジ" in Japanese (or something that shows the "d" in "Kurd" should more like a "z" in the original language). -Pan Sola 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Kurdish republic" in question seems purely fictional. Kurdistan article isn't an article on a country. -- Cat ^chi? 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we all know it's fictional. The question is whether it's a real reference of the Kurds... actually, now that I think about it, even if the link is proven, the proper wiki link should probably be Kurd, the people/culture/identity and not Kurdistan the specific region. -Pan Sola 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No what I mean is there is no Kurdish country at the moment. And yes After all Kurdistan is a controversial term unlike Kurdish people. How important is this to the story though? -- Cat ^chi? 21:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally think subtly (via linking) pointing out any real-world reference (if they can be confirmed) is relevant. -Pan Sola 21:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Cat ^chi? 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Shinn

Removed reference to Shinn; this is a new series, folks. In addition, such "resemblance" is up to discussion, and therefore shouldn't be presented as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.181.98 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, such statements are original research. --Koveras ^☭ 06:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the character Setsuna resembles is CLEARLY Yagami Light, from DeathNote. ^.^ 68.148.224.47 07:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Having been discovered by Celestial Being at the age of 14 for having special potential as a pilot,

Is that inferred from the show or explicitly told somewhere? From my perspective, all that can be confirmed was that at age of 14 10, he was saved by "Gundam 0" (not sure if the organization Celestial Being even existed at that time), and at age of 16 he is a pilot. I don't know when his potential was discovered. I don't know whether Gundam 0 took him in on the day it saved him, or if he chased the Gundam to a local hideout and pleaded Gundam 0's pilot to take him in or a dozen other possible scenarios of how he might've joined. -Pan Sola 21:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The scene at the beginning of the first episode where he is saved by Gundam 0 takes place in 2301, making him ten at that time. Veejilante 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I have modified my question accordingly. -Pan Sola 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Saji's Personality

I've already added this in a discussion page of Saji Crossroad, but nobody bothered looking at it, so I'm putting it here.

Is someone gonna add a section of Saji's personality? SilentmanX (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Übermensch Research Center

Is Übermensch a valid translation for Choujin? Fallacies 08:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An entry redesign concept

Setsuna F. Seiei (刹那・F・セイエイ) Voiced by: Mamoru Miyano Age: 16 Height: 162 cm Weight: 49 kg Bloodtype: A Birthdate: Apr. 7, 2291 Birthplace: Kurdish Republic Unit: GN-001 Gundam Exia

Having been discovered by Celestial Being at the age of 14 for having special potential as a pilot, he is currently a Gundam Meister for their organization. He can be described as taciturn and comes off as a knowledgeable young man. Resides in Japan when not on Celestial Being duties. Episode 7 of the anime reveals that Setsuna's real name may be Sora or Soran, and that he murdered his own mother under Sarshes' influence.

Lockon Stratos (ロックオン・ストラトス) Voiced by: Shinichiro Miki Age: 24 Height: 185 cm Weight: 67 kg Bloodtype: O Birthdate: Mar. 3, 2283 Birthplace: Ireland Unit: GN-002 Gundam Dynames

Decided to join Celestial Being after losing his parents to terrorists in Ireland. He is the eldest pilot and team leader of the Gundam Meisters. He owns an orange Haro.

To compress the vertical length of the article. Thoughts? Or too messy? It wouldn't be applied everywhere, obviously, as certain sections have insufficient content to justify use of the format, and others have pictures (like above Setsuna's actual entry) that make the table have a bad fit.
Fallacies (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of those details might be too detailed for the scope of WP maybe? -Pan Sola (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate, things like Birthplace would be probably relevant as some have plot significance, but blood type does not improve our understanding of the characters unless their personalities closely follows the stereotypes in Japanese culture (kind of like Zodiacs, but more general). Age helps put certain relationships and actions/reactions in perspective, but the exact birthdate doesn't really do much. Height and weight also don't seem to matter unless someone is extraordinarily thin or tall etc. Just my 2 cents. After most of the bullet items are removed, the need to compress space would be greatly reduced. -Pan Sola (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Removed some of the bullets. I think listing a birthdate is alright -- I get a better feel of the relative date, moreso than from the contentless Age field. Fallacies (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Echo Corone in Gundam 00F

Is it okay to put the guy in the page? I mean, he wasn't listed as one of the characters in Gundam 00F. Ominae (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he's in it, then he might as well be listed?
Fallacies (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Romanization of Names

What's the romanization rule on Chinese names appearing in Japanese fiction? Do we look at the kanji and figure out how it would've been romanized in Mandarin pronouncation, or do we just romanize the Japanese pronunciation of the name? "Wang Liu Mei" and "Wan Ryūmin" don't quite sound the same... -Pan Sola 23:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, the original entry was fine. I don't know that such a rule exists, but I modified the language tag to include most of the information you would really need. -Fallacies (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know it's fine according to what? It's obviously not how her name is being pronounced in the anime. Those Chinese characters would have different pronunciations depending on if you read it in Mandarin or Cantonese (or one of the many other dialects). I'll settle for any official reference of her name in English, but if we don't have that, assuming her name should be pronounced in any particular dialect of Chinese might count as original research? -Pan Sola (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What is used in the current article entry is the standard Wade-Giles romanization of the actual characters in her name, independently verifiable by anybody with familiarity of the system -- it isn't quite under the umbrella of original research. It would be original research if somebody was claiming that "Wang Liu Mei is the official romanization of her name" -- and that isn't the case. Corrections can be made to emphasize this, but what's there shouldn't be invalidated.

If Wan Ryuumin is recognized to be the "correct" romanization of her name, then shouldn't we assume the same for Gurahamu Eikaa, Saji Kurosuroudo, Kurisutina Shiera, Patorikku Kourasawaa, or Serugei Sumirunofu? Isn't standardizing all these names to English spellings "original research" since no canon English names for these characters exist in the materials thus far published or broadcasted?

Relevantly, the Japanese wiki uses "Wang Liu-Min" (partial Wade-Giles romanization) without citation. The official program site alternatively writes the characters according to the real-life standard format of Chinese-to-Japanese used in Japan, rendering it Wan Ryumin. This is typically done in the understanding that it's an approximation of whatever the actual pronunciation of the name is in the native dialect, but in this case the person in question isn't really Chinese -- no "original dialect" exists.

Note that Wade-Giles is a fairly standardized romanization format throughout the Chinese-speaking global community, and that the most viable replacement otherwise is Pinyin, as opposed to Cantonese. Also, Mandarin is state-official a "common dialect" in all Chinese speaking regions besides Hong Kong (where Cantonese is recognized as the de facto variant). It boils down to whether we believe she's actually Chinese, or if the language has survived without significant change into the 24th century.

In any case, I feel that what's there now is "fine" because the current romanization information in the article includes both the Wade-Giles and the actual Japanese pronunciation. If you feel a need, make a note specifying the Japanese to be "official" next to the name information of *all* the characters listed. Or simply make one at the top of the page. I don't know that it's necessary. Bandai will eventually license an official translation, in which case corrections will have to be made anyways.

Fallacies (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ian Vasty

He is the main engineer of Celestial Being and the former chief engineer of AEU.

Where is this shown or stated?
Fallacies 14:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It is stated in the issue of Hobby Japan with the first episode of 00V. - Iron2000 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please scan or provide an image of the article.
Fallacies (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alejandro Corner and Libbons Almack

It appears that Alejandro and Libbons are related to the Trinity siblings and the Gundam Thrones. Although not official, there are hints which supports it. In episode 16, Alejandro seems to be persuading the other CB members to accept the Gundam Thrones, and he smiled when the other observers accepts them. In episode 18, when the crew of Ptolemaios were talking about the possiblity that Veda was hacked, Libbons' image was shown. Does anyone agree that the might be related to the Trinity siblings and Gundam Thrones? (142.232.8.5 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Veda

Given that Veda is an AI, shouldn't it be considered a character and thus listed her rather than merely being given brief mentions in other characters' profiles? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this when/if they ever show Veda thinking/speaking. Until then Veda is really just a tool that is used by the team. 69.243.158.192 (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Trinity as part of Celestial Being

Can it be confirmed that Trinity is actually part of Celestial Being and/or that the Trinity siblings are in fact (as the article claims) a "second team of Gundam Meisters". I have added a fact tag to this claim, as the article provides no source.

Setsuna and the other Meisters actually doubt Trinity's allegiances as well, and the last episode in which they attacked civilians unprovokedly seems to have only furthered this conclusion. At very least, Veda was hacked as this is stated by Johann, Tieria, and a few other characters in Episode 19. If they are part of Celestial Being, why would they need to hack their own computer? Why would Veda not have data on their units if they are part of 'the plan'? What about the sinister UN guy that obviously has some sort of stolen Celestial Being technology? For all we know, Alejandro Corner = Ragna and he is manipulating the Trinity family into doing his dirty work (such as killing Aifman once he learned too much and taking out his political enemies such as Louise's parents).

Until such time that either the series confirms that they are part of Celestial Being or someone can provide a source to it, I believe they should be considered a separate faction. 69.243.158.192 (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

Please leave the current names as they are, unless you have obtained any official statement or source that corrects them, as the current names are official (Aker, Tsery, Ribbons, Saachez etc etc). 165.21.154.91 (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

List name

As per the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gundam 00 Characters, this article has been renamed to the proper name of List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters. This is in keeping with the anime/manga project and general Wikipedia naming conventions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then what about Universal Century, After War or After Colony characters.... why don't you fix? --staka (T ・C) 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question....I've posted the issue at the anime and manga project, as it seems the issue with Gundam article names is much more far reaching than just this one. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. --staka (T ・C) 13:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have marked Setsuna F. Seiei‎, Lockon Stratos, Allelujah Haptism, and Tieria Erde. These articles fails WP:FICT and WP:NOTE and do not contain any out-of-universe information. They are primarily plot summaries, which fails WP:NOT, and contain no reliable third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 11:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support all. They may be major characters, but as said, they fail WP:FICT and do not meet the requirements for having their own articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. I feel that there is too much information on these characters that would only lengthen the already long character page. If people still feel that these pages should be merged back, instead why not a single page for all of the meisters be created. --MissEzri (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We may improve the articles to meet WP:FICT by adding citations, add more less in-universe info. --staka (T ・C) 23:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I've brought up the merge proposal instead of just s-merging it outright. There may be a possibility that there are reliable third-party sources for out-of-universe information. However, if those sources are not going to be presented in a timely manner, then the articles should be merged/redirected. But even so, the plot details in the character article are already in need of some serious trimming. Plot summaries should be as concise as possible, hitting only the main points. We should do our best to avoid creating articles which are mostly a plot summaries in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly don't agree on merging the four pages back into the "main" character page for reasons of largeness and general disorganization, a compromise of a "Gundam Meisters" page as suggested above would certainly work as it wouldn't be as long and still be organized enough, I think. If the lack of noteworthy information each by itself is, I assume, the problem here that is. King Arthur6687 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well add history of how the characters were designed for the series.. those informations are considered as out-of-universe? If Gundam Meisters page will be created, then also write about the Gundam pilot ranks even though that is still in-universe. --staka (T ・C) 21:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the Universal Century and Cosmic Era characters have their own articles. Why not the Anno Domini characters?Shaneymike (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The existence of one mess does not give a pass to creating other messes. --Farix (Talk) 17:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not support, there have been numerous third party articles about the four gundam pilots of 00 in Japanese magazines and online. Its just hard to cite because its in Japanese, take a look a Japanese wiki for more info you know Japanese.--Finalnight (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide the names of the magazines along with the volume, issue, and page numbers of the articles? As for sources used by the Japanese Wiki, I only see one that will fit as a third-party source, but it appears to be about the show itself and doesn't say anything about characters. --Farix (Talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not support. Nearly all Code Geass' main characters have their own page, but is Code Geass more prominent or noteworthy than Gundam? Speaks for itself. As for the real world notability, the Meisters have been appearing on posters, toys and Seiyuus have won awards for their potrayal of Gundam 00 characters. Isn't that notable enough? Joppyhoppy (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Allelujah Haptism

I feel that Allelujah Haptism should remain its own page. The page hasn't had many updates recently due to the lack of development in the series currently. But he remains a main character and there is enough information for him to maintain his own page.--MissEzri (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a main character does not, in and of itself, mean he meets the WP:N and WP:FICT requirements for having his own article. Can you point to extensive real-world, third party discussion of the character that would justify his having an article? AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anno Domini characters template

Hey everybody, I just started an Anno Domini characters template just like they have for Universal Century and Cosmic Era. Feel free to add more characters to it as soon as they have their own article.

Shaneymike (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to Template:Anno Domini characters, but creating the template was probably a mistake.. since the merge proposal is still on. --staka (T ・C) 16:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that after I created the template. Darn! Shaneymike (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should convert it back to just one group, Celestial Being, seeing as how all the characters that have articles thus far are from that group. Eventually, we may want to start one for Sumeragi and maybe even Aeolia Schenberg. Hell, they have one for George Glenn from Gundam SEED. Like the Universal Century and Cosmic Era Templates, I think we should designate the characters according to what group they belong to; whether it be CB, the Union, AEU, HRL, etc. Shaneymike (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry.. you may place Team Trinity back into Celestial Being group. However, since each individual person of Team Trinity do not have their own article, make it [[Team Trinity]] rather than [[Team Trinity|Nena Trinity]] etc. It looks odd.. when three characters are bolded on one article. --staka (T ・C) 16:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Depending on how big of a role she plays later in the series, we may want to create an individual page for Nena Trinity. But that's only if her role is on par with let's say Reccoa Londe or Flay Allster. Shaneymike (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the Template by merging all the groups from Season 1 under one list and starting a new list for Season Two. As you can see, I've already listed A-Laws. I've also listed Kataron, but that hasn't appeared yet because none of the characters have articles yet. Shaneymike (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, every time I make a change to the template I have to go through each character's article to make sure those changes appears. It's frustrating. Shaneymike (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Team Trinity

Hi, I recently changed some of this section around--I removed the three character bios of the Trinity Team from the latter part of this article, and instead just mentioned the names of the three characters in the first line, since all of the character bios are copy and pasted over from the main Team Trinity article. SilentmanX (talk · contribs) has reverted these changes.

I am now seeking consensus on how to proceed from here. Either we should place Team Trinity up for deletion and keep the character bios in this article, or we should place very limited (or no) bios on this page, and work to improve the Team Trinity page. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 00:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Team Trinity is like the second most important group in the series after Gundam Meisters, this list of characters may have an intro of the group, and the rest of the information copy to and edit in Team Trinity. --staka (T ・C) 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Character Articles

I know there is talk about merging the articles for the four Gundam meisters. My beef with that is most of the major Universal Century and Cosmic Era characters have their own individual articles. So far, the only Anno Domini characters who have articles are the Gundam Meisters and Team Trinity. I hope to see more articles for individual characters in the near future. I'd do it myself if I had enough information, but right now I'm sadly lacking. Some other characters who I think deserve an article are Ali Al-Saachez, Graham Acre, Alejandro Corner, Patrick Colasour, Marina Ismail. Shaneymike (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Should there be an article for Billy too? Shaneymike (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deceased tag

I noticed someone put (deceased) next to the Trinity siblings. I think this is good because it stands out to people reading the article that certain characters are dead. I have added these tags to Ali Al Saachez, Lockon, Christinia, Lichty, and Kinue Crossroad since they are all dead. I also added it to that annoying AEU 'ace pilot' guy. 69.243.158.192 (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary or stupid, rather. For some viewers who has just started watching the show, they will say they haven't deceased because they are not at that episode or the part of the plot that all of those characters are killed or have died. Can't really explain.. but for fictional characters, deceased tag is unnecessary. --staka (T ・C) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow i agree with Staka, you're not going to create character entry for Titanic and put a "deceased" tag beside Jack's name, won't you? but still, this is a series in progress, so it might actually be necessary, I dunno, but my preference said those are better removed, or at least defined on which episode they are killed.Lolipedofin (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Close proposal for meger

Now that there has been sufficient time to discuss the proposal, I think we should close the discussion and either merge or remove the proposal and tags.--Finalnight (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed them for the time being. Feel free to add them back if the articles are not improved over time. Joppyhoppy (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lyle dylandy one should be removed. We don't know if he has a major role later on... Ominae (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lyle dylandy was deleted for nonsense.. --staka (T ・C) 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Rasa Massoud Rachmadi (マスード・ラフマディー?)" Is it really 'Rasa'

It's not that significant, but i think it won't hurt to mention it.... Is that really how his 'title' should be romanized?? Rasa??

From my point of view, it's should actually be 'Rasul', it's the Arabian word ford 'Prophet'. This is a bit daring though, since fundamentally, moslems based their religions as Muhammad being their last prophet... I just say this because to me, 'Rasa' seems to be meaningless...

If anyone knows anything else, anything official about it, could you please note that here... thanxLolipedofin (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Season 2 Characters

Are there any proposed ideas as to how the characters on this page will be sorted come Season 2? With organisations such as the A-Laws and Kataron usurping the previous AEU/HRL/Union military powers, and individuals such as Nena, Wang and Ribbons appearing to have defected from Celestial Being... things could get tricky. Moreover, how would one go about differentiating between the two Lockons (Neil and Lyle)? Season 2 premiered yesterday, so I believe that it'd be best to sort this out soon... Also, one more (slightly silly) question - would it be better to replace the main image of, for example, the Louise Halevy article to her more recent season 2 appearance as opposed to the original? 122.108.52.46 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We'd also probably need to find a way to separate the first season organisations from those of the second season...122.108.52.46 (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already merged all of the organizations from Season 1 under one list on the template and started a new one with all the organizations from Season 2. So far, I've added A-Laws and Kataron to the list. Kataron doesn't appear yet because none of its members have articles yet. Shaneymike (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Arrows or A-Laws?

I added a discussion topic last week about this. We refer to them as A-Laws, but in the anime I heard the characters calling them Arrows. What are they really called? Arrows or A-Laws? SilentmanX (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Official is A-Laws. It is shown on the model box. MythSearcher^talk 19:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What moel box?SilentmanX (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the Ahead/GN-XIII gunpla. 122.104.90.252 (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Status of Barack Zinin of A-Laws

His troops are shot down one by one by Gundam Seravee, and he himself, along with a GN-XIII pilot, are killed by the 00 Gundam.

This is incorrect.

1. It is called the Seravee Gundam, not the Gundam Seravee. Look at the official website if you don't believe me. Don't confuse which part of the name comes first.
2. He was not killed. Of his team of 2 Aheads and 3 GN-XIIIs, one GN-XIII exploded on its own due to heavy damage from the Ptolemy 2's missiles, another was destroyed by Seravee's GN Bazooka fire detonating the spread of GN particles made from the earlier missile fire. Of the 2 Aheads and the one remaining GN-XIII, Zinin's Ahead stayed behind and fought the Seravee while the other Ahead, which has a nameless faceless pilot, went on ahead. Zinin even said "Go ahead and attack the spaceship, I'll stay and deal with the Gundam". The Ahead and GN-XIII that went to attack the Ptolemy were destroyed by 00, the outcome of Zinin and Tieria's battle is not actually shown but Mileina reports that "enemy mobile suit is retreating". If you're going to make such an addition to the article, please be 100% sure it is accurate. It helps to actually pay attention to the episode as well.--Robtf (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Make the Klaus Grado article

I have an article of Klaus Grado that will be added soon, but requires more info.

So if possible, can you guys improve the article and add more info of him. I will also add more info of the character and try to improve the article. And if it is good enough then the article will be added on the List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters. SilentmanX (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Regene Regetta a He or a She?

This is something I wanna make sure, is Regene Regetta a he or a she? SilentmanX (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody knows for sure. Please refer to the discussion page of the Regene Regetta article for more information. Just a sun (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Its Kathy Mannequin?

Her official name is Kathy Mannequin. Also do you guys know her bio? SilentmanX (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Notation: No, her official name is Kati Manneqin. The "trading cards" that have her "name" on them have no official ties to Sunrise and what not, therefore they make up whatever spelling they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.75.234 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Make the Andrei Smirnov article

I have another article that requires extended info and improvement before it can be added to the character's list. Can someone please help me on this? SilentmanX (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Katharon

The official romanization of the organization カタロン is "Katharon".

Source: http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6788/katharontf9.jpg

Just a sun (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Kinue Crossroad article?

Should I or Should I not make the Kinue Crossroad article?

SilentmanX (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt she's notable enough. Kinue was a fairly minor character and was of no great importance to the plot; moreover, she's dead, and thus it's not as though there's much room for her story to grow. 122.104.93.58 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Christina Sierra article really necessary?

I've been to that article few times now and I've notice that there's not much to put in now. If the article were to stay then it should have more info in it, if not then there's no point keeping it.

What's your say? SilentmanX (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm all for a merge. Christina's not of great enough importance as it is, and she most probably won't be making any further appearances in the show. 114.76.119.166 (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Seconding the merge. Christina's always been a supporting character, so it's difficult to provide any strong plot relevant content. And her appearances probably will be limited to flashbacks or something if she even shows up in the second season. 24.84.218.226 (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The article has been merged SilentmanX (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I cleaned up the page by cutting back on the amount of text for characters who already have articles because it was far too long and extremely unnecessary. Please do not revert any more of these clean up edits.

I also propose that we omit any information on characters who already have pages, instead merely listing their names. The verbose length of the character "summaries" is excessive. If someone wishes to know more about the character, all they have to do is visit the article. This will dramatically cut down on the hefty size of the page. 122.108.95.9 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been two hands raised for this idea and none against, so I'm going ahead and doing it. Moreover, I added a key for the second season of 00 in order to differentiate between it and the first, as many characters have changed loyalties and defected, joined other factions, etc. between the two seasons. Ali is the only character who presents a problem to this, as he doesn't strictly fall under any specific category in the second season (despite answering primarily to Ribbons, he would be out of place under "Innovators" as the term in-show refers to the beings themselves, and not the group); it's somewhat confusing right now, but I'll find a way to remedy this later if no one else does. Just a sun (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Anew Returner

It's pretty obvious that she's most probably Revive's twin, but right now we've only seen her with Celestial Being, so she should stay in that section of the article until otherwise confirmed.

Also, I put Linda Vashti back into the Krung Thep section (for those who don't know, Krung Thep is the name of Celestial Being's base at Lagrange 3) as she's yet to even be seen on the Ptolemaios. 114.76.119.166 (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you people don't even bother to use the discussion page or look at revision history. Also, it has NOT been confirmed that Divine is the remaining unidentified Innovator; until it's outright said in the show or in character profiles, it's still mere speculation. And again: as of the latest episode, Anew and Linda haven't even stepped foot on the Ptolemaios, so I have no idea where people are getting that info from. They work in Krung Thep, which is the name of CB's Lagrange 3 base (see the Krung Thep article for more info).

I really don't want to go around constantly nitpicking and editing every single tiny thing anymore, so this article can be filled with as many factual inconsistencies as you like. Not my loss. /ragequit, etc. 114.76.119.166 (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, Anew was stated to be joining the Ptolemaios crew in the latest Newtype, to help with maintenance for the 0 Raiser and GN Archer (Not the "GN Gun Archer" as the mobile unit list article calls it, according to Newtype the GN in "GN Archer" is pronounced "Gun"). I can provide you with a scan if you want. I'm not sure about Linda, though. --58.107.98.225 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has Anew Returner as being a spy for the Innovators when she's mentioned in Revive's section, but I don't think that has been confirmed or hinted at in the series, so I'm going to remove it66.76.155.2 (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Major Reorganization

Having the same character crop up twice causes a lot of confusion. We need to reorganize this page entirely, I propose we do it like the Code Geass character page, leaving the person affliation with their initial appearence - plau (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm not sure who put Ribbons there twice either. In any case, I still stand by the proposal to eliminate blurbs for characters with articles, as it's highly unnecessary. 114.76.119.166 (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles of other crew of CB

Will it be possible to do articles about the crew of the Krung Thep and the Fereshte, from the manga?

• I've been thinking about that for a while now and there are some characters from the manga that should have their own article. - SilentmanX (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not notable enough. --staka (T) 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Innovators and their genders

The nature of Innovators' genders is always a hot topic of debate, but right now it's best to judge them through pronoun usage. For reference, this is what is used for each Innovator so far revealed:

Ribbons: Masculine
Regene: Masculine
Revive: Masculine
Hilling: Feminine

Please refer to the discussion page more often. As for Hilling's name, I'm leaving it at Hilling because Healing is written differently in Japanese (hiiringu instead of hiringu), and it's entirely possible that her name is an intentional corruption of a preexisting word.

Officially, the only romanizations thus far released are Ribbons Almark and Regene Regetta.

122.104.93.58 (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's better to judge them without a gender, which in this case being the Innovators so far have been referred to as he. It is too much of an assumption to state there's she and he's.--Refuteku (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Hilling uses 'atashi', which is female-exclusive, so I'm pretty sure the writers are trying to make it seem as though Hilling is assigned to a 'female' gender. NO guy uses atashi, ever. On the contrary it'd be a bit of a stretch to refer to Hilling using male pronouns, as it'd be more accurate to actually translate Japanese => English correctly, pronouns at all. To the extent of our current knowledge, Hilling identifies as female in the Japanese version of the show. Why change it to male? Not to mention that while hinted at, the whole "Innovators have no sex" thing is still pure speculation at this point in time. So it's best to leave it at 'she', and if evidence ever arises that points toward Hilling being male or gender neutral, the article will be changed accordingly, however right now it's more hinting to the female side of things. I'll change it back for now, but if the majority of people strongly disagree and have evidence to support it (communication is important - please make use of the discussion page more, pleeeease!), then it can always be changed. 122.104.93.58 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of men that use "atashi", it's not a women's only thing. --Refuteku (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a native Japanese speaker, but while "watashi" is very common across both genders, I've yet to come across an example of a male actually using "atashi". I've always been taught that it is a female-exclusive thing. Wikipedia seems to agree with me, too. Watashi =/= atashi. 122.104.93.58 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest official report clarifies that Hilling/Healing is in fact a "female model" of an Innovator. Therefore, it is correct to assume her gender as being female. Just a sun (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Characters article format looks rediculas

I don't like the new layout of the character article, cause it looks like the one from that gundam wiki page, and it didn't look fully detailed.

What you think? - SilentmanX (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Couldn't you at least please keep it in one edit? It's going to be unnecessarily difficult to revert now. The article length was ridiculously long, so I removed all the redundant information in order to keep it organized. Changing it purely because it looks like another Wiki page is completely absurd. If you have a valid reason as to why the extra detail should remain, then please say so. Just a sun (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• • It didn't look much like a proper article. Compare that to other character articles I've seen like the Code Geass one, this one looks mostly like it came from that Gundam Wiki site. There are parts that are unnesessary, namely putting more than one name in a section. It didn't look that right to me. SilentmanX (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of how it looks, it's a matter of organization and clarity. Listing the details of all the characters is just far too unnecessary; the page should not be this long and confusing. The double-ups are necessary, as otherwise readers would not know at first glance of a certain character's involvement in their respective factions. Wikipedia is not a beauty contest; I don't see a problem with it looking "like it came from that Gundam Wiki site" so long as it's concise. Compare other Gundam articles such as the List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters and the List of Universal Century characters. Gundam is NOT Code Geass. And yet again you've ignored my request to keep it all in the one edit. Just a sun (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, messed up the page a little when trying to revert the edits. It's fixed now. Just a sun (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Names

Please stick to the official names, not assumed, fan-made or fan-preferred names.

For example, it's Ribbons Almark and not Livonze Almack/ Livonse Almack. (http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/3797/samplef37df739b97be76faue8.jpg)

Ralph Eifman and not Leif Eifman. (http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/13/sample3d4c75c0c371e2961tc8.jpg)

Kati Mannequin and not Kathy Manekin. (http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/13/sample3d4c75c0c371e2961tc8.jpg)

Please keep to these official names when editing. The Slimy One 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Notation: Those names that you provided for Leif and Kati are not "official". The DVD Liner Notes (as well as the World Report book) have the correct spellings. Those cards have been known to have whacky spellings since their inception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.145.132 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Yun Kouga's Design Works artbook, it's Ralph Eifman (http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb199/Mangaka-chan/Manga%20and%20anime%20scans/sketches-part2-03.jpg). 118.136.210.15 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Innovator Merger

Since it appears that Bring Stabity is dead and he didn't have that big of a role, I'm wondering if maybe we should merge some of the Innovator articles - Bring, Healing Care, Revive Revival - like they did with Orga Sabnak, Clotho Buer, and Shani Andras from Gundam Seed. See Template:Cosmic Era characters 2. Shaneymike (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the aforementioned druggie pilots, it takes you to this List of biological CPUs. Shall we set up something similar from the Innovators - Bring, Healing, Divine - whose appearance in this series is minor? Shaneymike (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we merge the articles for Healing and other relatively minor Innovators (leave the ones for Regene, Ribbons, Tieria and possibly Revive), and wait until the series is over before making an Innovator page. A general "Innovator (Gundam 00)" page would be incredibly useful to detail both the characters themselves as well as define what an Innovator is, plus any other associated information that would be worth adding.

For now, I've just placed a merge proposal template on Bring's page because he's dead (I'll merge it later), but if someone wants to add one for Healing then that'd be fine, too.Just a sun (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For now, I think we should merge the Bring Stabity article since he is dead. However, I don't think that the others should be merged because they could have their characters role expanded sometime by the end of the series. If their character has not expanded once the series is over, then I think it's okay to merge their articles with each other (Maine Coon Cat (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)).

Character Article Improvement

Is nobody here going to add any more info's or improve the articles?

There have been more info about some of these characters and there are some that need improvements. Is nobody sorting it out? because I have been looking at these articles and I tryed to add much info bcause there were some bits that have not been mentioned and I tried to improve some parts.

Where are you now? - SilentmanX (Talk) 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see what the problem is with any of the articles. So how can I improve something if I haven't the slightest clue what the person is complaining about. Shaneymike (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see any problems with the articles. I think they are fine as they are. (Maine Coon Cat (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).

Whoever is marking these articles isn't necessarily doing the same with the character articles from the other Gundam universes. Shaneymike (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with all of the character article that have never been addressed. The first is the aspect of notability. Notability is based on receiving significant coverage by reliable sources that is independent of the work itself, its creators and producers. Sourcing the VAs to ANN isn't enough to demonstrate significant coverage. Also, being a main character doesn't make the character notable or worthy of an article. Notability is not inherited.

Second is that all of the character articles are nothing more then extensive plot summaries which violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Only a brief summary of the character's role in the plot is permitted in conjunction with real-world coverage, which includes creative influences, design processes, critical commentary, and cultural reception.

Third, there is a great deal of original research and fan speculation on all of the articles. No mater how "obvious" it may seem or how much buzz a theory may get among fans, without coverage by a reliable source, it doesn't belong on the article. Content on Wikipedia should simply be descriptive and not analytical or interpretive. --Farix (Talk) 14:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There are probably only one or two fan speculation in each character articles. Most of us have retrieved information from the actual show, and quickly adding information to these articles, without adding reference citing those episodes where the information is from. Without sources cited, it seems as if it's an original research. Even though there are many published books regarding these characters in Japan, most of us have no way of buying, or even reading them to use them as a source... --Staka (T) 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

President Brian

"President Brian works and lives in the White House."

Does he really work and live in the white house? Look in Episode 2 at 0:06:05, when the president is looking out of the window. He is standing clearly at an elevated position, from where he can see far and look down on the trees. Also compare the view on the surrounding skyscrapers. The white house on the other hand is a smaller building, with only two floor above ground. Seems to me like President Brian is not in the white house, but in the larger building behind it that you can see at 0:05:51. From that position, he could overlook the White House and it's park. Thoughts? -Andromedos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.61.200 (talk) 18:41, February 10, 2008 (UTC)

English Voice Actor for Michael Trinity

I noticed that somebody changed the English voice actor for Michael Trinity from Ted Cole to Andrew Toth, which is probably true. But still, I have to ask if anybody can confirm that seeing as how it still says on ANN that Ted Cole plays him. Now I know ANN has been wrong before. They initially said that Michael Kopsa played Johann Trinity but then retracted that and credited him as Aeolia. The person who did the same here on Wiki said that he PM'd the man himself (Kopsa) and he confirmed as much that he played Aeolia and not Johann.

I also just noticed that ANN still has both Andrew Toth and Ted Cole credited as Clotho Buer in Gundam Seed, even though the end credits of those shows clearly indicate that Clotho was played by Toth. They also still have both Toth and Matt Smith credited as Orga Sabnak in Seed, even though the end credits of episode 20 of Gundam Seed Destiny clearly indicated that Orga was played by Matt Smith.

Now when I first heard Michael Trinity speaking in English, I thought for sure it was Andrew Toth, and again I know that ANN aren't always 100 percent on getting their facts straight. There's no doubt in my mind that it's Toth, but still I have to ask if anybody can confirm as much. Shaneymike (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Page cleanup

The main issue with this page is that, in addition to Gundam 00's large cast, it is nigh impossible to separate the page according to a character's corresponding group. My suggestion, if anything, would be to have two character pages - one for Season 1, and one for Season 2... but that's not taking all the characters from side materials into consideration. So, for now, it'd be best if we keep it to the one page.

I'm still trying to make the page look shorter and more organized, however. Perhaps a more condensed look would make things easier to read? The following is a preview of something I'm trying, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the way it looks just yet, as it makes the detailed character profiles look a little odd and out of place.

Extended content

Gundam Meisters Within the organization, members designated to pilot mobile suits of the Gundam production line are referred to as Meisters (マイスター, Maisuta), German for Master, and are typically addressed by an alias. As such, the names in the entries below are codenames. Setsuna F Seiei (刹那・F・セイエイ) [00: S1/00: S2] Lockon Stratos (ロックオン・ストラトス) [00: S1/00: S2] (Note: "Lockon Stratos" is a Gundam Meister codename used by two different people) Allelujah Haptism (アレルヤ・ハプティズム) [00: S1/00: S2] Tieria Erde (ティエリア・アーデ) [00: S1/00: S2] Gundam Throne Meisters/Team Trinity Johann Trinity (ヨハン・トリニティ, Yohan Toriniti) [00: S1] Michael Trinity (ミハエル・トリニティ, Mihaeru Toriniti) [00: S1] Nena Trinity (ネーナ・トリニティ, Nēna Toriniti) [00: S1/00: S2] Crew of the Ptolemaios [[:Image:Gundam 00 - Crew of the Ptolemaios.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Original members of Celestial Being, clockwise from top-left: Lasse Aeon, Lockon Stratos (Neil), Setsuna F Seiei, Orange Haro, Tieria Erde, Allelujah Haptism, Joyce Moreno, Lichtendahl Tsery, Christina Sierra, Feldt Grace, Sumeragi Lee Noriega, Ian Vashti.]] Sumeragi Lee Noriega (スメラギ・李・ノリエガ) [00: S1/00: S2] Feldt Grace (フェルト・グレイス) [00: S1/00: S2] Lasse Aeon (ラッセ・アイオン) [00: S1/00:S2] Ian Vashti (イアン・ヴァスティ) [00: S1/00:S2/00P] Saji Crossroad (沙慈・クロスロード) [00: S2] Marie Parfacy (マリー・パーファシー) [00: S2] Christina Sierra (クリスティナ・シエラ) [00: S1] Voiced by: Arise Satō (Japanese); Shannon Chan-Kent (English) Age: 22 (KIA) Ptolemaios tactical operator. She was a highly-skilled programmer who ran away from her adopted mother before being discovered by Celestial Being. She has a good-natured and playful personality and is honest to the extent that she bluntly tells her feelings to others. Christina enjoys exploration, programming, and shopping, and often tries to get friends involved with her activities, particularly by having Feldt Grace try on new outfits that are suitable by Christina's own judgement. Due to bad experiences, she doesn't like to recall her past to people. Christina is an idealist about changing the world and has a deep trust in her comrades. She seems to be green in combat situations, and broke down mid-combat in the Ptolemaios when the ship was struck by enemy fire. On the other hand, she does seem to value her relationship with the rest of the Celestial Being members of Ptolemaios, and sometimes even covers up for the Gundam Meisters, such as not reporting to her superiors that Setsuna F Seiei had taken an unauthorized detour in the Kingdom of Azadistan. Although surviving the initial explosion on the bridge of Ptolemaios from an attack by a GN-X due to Lichtendahl Tsery's attempts to shield her, she is fatally wounded by the debris, with a large piece lodged in her back. It is at this point that Lichtendahl reveals to her his cyborg body; before he dies she tells him she is amazed that a person as Licht was right there in front of her all this time, and that she might be developing feelings for him. She manages to contact the survivors of the crew briefly and tells Feldt to live on for the sake of Lockon's memory, before dying in the subsequent explosion.

If anyone has any suggestions, please put them forth. 114.76.119.166 (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There where a few reasons why I tagged the page with {{verylong}}. First, the list is attempting to do to much by organizing the characters by factions. Especially when many character changes factions at some point in the series. This results in many of them being listed two or more times. Second, the main characters are absent a description of any sort. Give that the individual character articles would not survive as stand-alone articles. It is important to merge them back into the main list. Third I've noticed several incidental characters on the list that should be here. The list should only contain reoccurring characters who appear through most of one season. Characters such as Joshua Edwards, and Delphine Bedelia should be removed since they only appear once, and the immediately killed off.

To deal with issue one, I would suggest rearranging the character in an out-of-universe maner, such as listing them as "Protagonists", "Antagonists", and "Others" or "Main/Primary characters", "Secondary/Supporting characters", and "Minor/Reoccurring characters" --Farix (Talk) 13:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on the merging of the main characters into the main article. They are definitely notable enough to have their own articles due to things such as the amount of cultural impact they have had (celebrities cosplaying characters, national recognition and character-related awards received, etc) and the sheer amount of character-related merchandise that has been produced. The notability of other characters is debatable, but I wouldn't go merging the articles any time soon (Universal Century and SEED both have a large amount of articles, so I don't see why 00 - which has become equally popular and recognized - shouldn't get the same treatment).

I do agree, however, that the inclusion of many one-time characters is unnecessary. I will fix this. However, the issue of sorting is still somewhat tricky due to the nature of the series. I personally don't see the doubling up of character names as a particular problem, but sorting the characters according to "protagonists" and "antagonists" would be impossible. Your second suggestion sounds significantly better, but I'm still not sure if it would be entirely suitable. 114.76.119.166 (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to question the "cultural impact" that you claim the characters have simply because there are no reliable sources presented to document such impact. Also, the fact that the merchandise has been created based on the characters does not make the characters notable. Especially since anime has been a vehicle for merchandising for years in Japan. Nor does their importance or role in the work itself. The notability of the characters must be separate from the notability of the work in order for them to have a stand-a-character article. As the character articles currently stand, they are likely to be deleted though the AfD process. But even if the character articles did stand, there needs to be a short summary of the characters included on this list. (see WP:SS) --Farix (Talk) 12:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree this list needs a reorganization, as TheFarix suggested, to be more out-of-universe. "Celestial Being", "Union" etc are labels that are only recognizable to fans of the series or those who have already seen it, and purely in-universe labels. If protagonists/antagonists are fairly clear, I'd go with "Protagonists", "Antagonists", and "Supporting", otherwise "Main", "Secondary", "Minor/Other recurring" (which depending on the length, that could be dropped). And a character should appear in one section, period. The doubling up goes against the MoS in spirit, even if they don't have headers at the moment.

Also strongly agree that merging is needed, and long overdue. While there are some characters/fictional elements for which true notability can be established (significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources and the availability of both conception/creation and reception information), the greater bulk are not notable by Wikipedia standards and do not need their own articles. Cosplaying is not significant notability. And yes, even if a character has a standalone article, a summary must be provided here per WP:SUMMARY and the guidelines for split offs. Third, minor characters need to be dropped. At best, such one-two episode folks get mentioned in the summaries of the episode's they appear in, but no section is needed here.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

After repeated attempts to reorganize the article, it's beginning to look like splitting it between seasons is looking like a better idea. Prequel characters can be listed with the first season's list. --Farix (Talk) 02:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Character organization outline

Extended content

First series Main characters Setsuna F Seiei, Lockon Stratos, Allelujah Haptism, Tieria Erde Supporting characters Protagonists Sumeragi Lee Noriega, Feldt Grace, Christina Sierra, Lichtendahl Tsery, Lasse Aeon, Ian Vashti, Joyce Moreno Antagonists Union Graham Aker, Billy Katagiri, Howard Mason, Daryl Dodge, Ralph Eifman Human Reform League Sergei Smirnov, Soma Peries AEU Patrick Colasour, Kati Mannequin Others Ali Al-Saachez, Team Trinity(?), Alejandro Corner Other characters Saji Crossroad, Louise Halevy, Kinue Crossroad, Marina Ismail, Shirin Bakhtiar(?), Wang Liu Mei, Hong Long, Ribbons Almark(?), Laguna Harvey(?) Second series Main characters Setsuna F Seiei, Lockon Stratos, Allelujah Haptism, Tieria Erde Supporting characters Protagonists Sumeragi Lee Noriega, Feldt Grace, Lasse Aeon, Ian Vashti, Mileina Vashti, Saji Crossroad, Anew Returner, Marie Parfacy(?) Antagonists A-Laws Mr. Bushido, Patrick Colasour, Louise Halevy, Billy Katagiri, Kati Mannequin, Soma Peries(?), Andrei Smirnov, Innovators Ribbons Almark, Regene Regetta, Revive Revival, Healing Care, Bring Stabity, Devine Nova Earth Sphere Federation (Possible move to Other characters?) Sergei Smirnov, Pang Hercule Others Ali Al-Saachez Other characters Katharon Shirin Bakhtiar, Lyle Dylandy, Klaus Grado, Marina Ismail Wang Liu Mei, Hong Long, Nena Trinity Other media Mobile Suit Gundam 00P Mobile Suit Gundam 00F Mobile Suit Gundam 00V

This is still a work in process, some characters I'm not sure how they should be listed, if they are listed at all. Since I haven't watched the second series yet, I don't know which characters are significant and which are simply background characters that can be ignored. There is still the idea of splitting the first and second series off into separate lists. Given the size of the cast, that would be a good idea. --Farix (Talk) 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the main characters carry through from series to series? If so, why split by series and have repeats? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Too keep down on excessive plot details for any one list. --Farix (Talk) 17:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the question then is why does it need splitting by series at all? It seems like they are all the same characters, just new "major events" which could be covered in one section and one list, similar to Naruto, Bleach, Dragon Ball, and other multi-arc series? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

While ideally, a single list should contain all of the characters. But the Gundam 00 editors have a inability to keep the character descriptions concise, as required by WP:NOT#PLOT. In fact, the length of many of the character articles have exploded during the last couple of days. --Farix (Talk) 22:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see that this is a problem. The information in these articles seem adequate to me. If we wanted less information we can just visit the official sites themselves. Wikipedia provides us with more depth and shouldn't be too much trimmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a fansite, its an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't here to provide in-depth, rather summary detail. Excessive plot detail goes against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, including WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Go and read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), both of which prohibit extensive plot summaries. And while you are at it, also read Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. You will find that every one of the character articles violates those core policies and guidelines to some extent or another. Wikipedia is not a Gundam fansite and all article should be written from a real world perspective. --Farix (Talk) 21:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia. It is a free forum site with contents contributed by regular users. By definition that makes Wikipedia a "fansite". Anyway, I would harldy call providing more detailed information as "fansite" material. Speaking of which, you might want to clean up Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. They are cluttered and difficult to find useful information in. Basically there is TOO much information using "technobabble". A real world perspective? Well if I wrote about the real world, I'd think providing readers with extensive background and information would be something you'd normally do when writing an article about a subject. Also, the Gundam00 sites you referred to didn't have that extensive a plot summary. In fact what you have left on the remaining characters is longer. Why don't you go edit/delete those articles as well? Hell, why not downsize the whoel Gundam00 article to one page where it just highlights the name of the show and the names of the four first appearing Gundam Meisters? That way You won't have any problem with edits in the future because there won't be anything left to edit. Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a "free forum" nor a forum at all, nor is it a fansite. It is an encyclopedia, whether you like that idea or not, and it has rules and guidelines. None of those pages need "cleaning up" as all of it is useful information to those who want to contrib here. Sarcastic responses aren't really useful either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is only an Encyclopedia in the Encyclopedia "in-verse". In the real world everyone knows that Encyclopedia is nothing of the kind.Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENC and WP:5P will disagree with you. --Farix (Talk) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are inverse articles.Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...its one reason I suspect the project has had been less than enthusiastic about really getting in here and cleaning out this stuff. I guess I'd say just go for it bit by bit, starting here, then dealing with the individual character articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A less hectic version:

• Protagonists
  • Main protagonists
    • Setsuna F Seiei, Lockon Stratos (Neil Dylandy), Lockon Stratos (Lyle Dylandy), Allelujah Haptism, Tieria Erde
  • Supporting characters
    • Sumeragi Lee Noriega, Feldt Grace, Christina Sierra, Lichtendahl Tsery, Lasse Aeon, Ian Vashti, Joyce Moreno, Mileina Vashti, Anew Returner, Marie Parfacy(?)
• Antagonists
  • Ali Al-Saachez, Graham Aker, Billy Katagiri, Howard Mason, Daryl Dodge, Sergei Smirnov, Soma Peries(?), Patrick Colasour, Kati Mannequin, Alejandro Corner, Ribbons Almark, Andrei Smirnov, Innovators
• Other characters
  • Saji Crossroad, Louise Halevy, Kinue Crossroad, Marina Ismail, Shirin Bakhtiar, Ralph Eifman, Wang Liu Mei, Hong Long, Team Trinity(?), Laguna Harvey(?), Pang Hercule(?), Klaus Grado
• Other media
  • Mobile Suit Gundam 00P
  • Mobile Suit Gundam 00F
  • Mobile Suit Gundam 00V

That looks good to me. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. For now, I've removed the characters from other media as it was just too much to deal with at one time. But the list is already looking much better. Now we just need short summaries for those characters that don't have any. And many of the current summaries do need to be trim. --Farix (Talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The list is looking like crap now. As a user I find it harder to navigate now and much less informative. I might as well go read whatever tripe they write on Fox9 for all that will get me now.Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 05:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The list is still in progress, but is much improved with proper real-world organization, rather than in-universe grouping that is useless to anyone who isn't a fan of the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Partly agree, yet, if serving as a part of introducing the story, it would make sense to also group the characters into their own plot based group.(say protagonist or antagonist) MythSearcher^talk 07:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That really isn't a character lists purpose, though...the main article introduces the story :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this new list format. It doesn't even look like a character list, just look at the Code Geass one. Well we'll see how it goes after the series finihed. SilentmanX (Talk) 17:16, February 2009 (UTC)

It was fine before, now it doesn't look very organized. It's like everything has been clumped up together.(Maine Coon Cat (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)).

The old list had way to much repetition; almost all of the major antagonists were listed twice. On top of that, they were listed based on in-universe groups instead of their real world roles in the plot as is suggested by WP:WAF. Also, organizing most of the antagonists into smaller groups isn't very feasible as they change from the first series to the second. So a strait list is about all that can be done instead of the hybrid organization between real world roles and in-universe groups that was used for the protagonists. --Farix (Talk) 03:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that somebody with experience in these things move Louise Halevy to the Antagonist group. She belongs there and not in the "other" section. Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

She is only an antagonists in the second season, and it's hard to say at this point if she will stay there. So it is actually inappropriate to list her there. --Farix (Talk) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

She cared nothing for the world or celestial being in the firs season. She cared only about herself and her own happiness. It can be argued that she was a "normal human", but the premise of the first season of Gundam00 the regular humans ARE the enemy of Celestial Being. The regular humans are who are truly the cause of all the suffering because they allow the military and those in charge to continue doing what they are doing. (see Hercules reasoning). As such Louise was a part of the Antagonist of CB even in the first season. Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"The civilians are the enemy/antagonists" is both an in-universe perspective and it includes a great deal of original research. --Farix (Talk) 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not original research. It has been shown in the show. Calling it original research you could just as say that even writing a characters name that has been confirmed in the show isn't confirmed if no other sources confirm it. (despite what is being shown in the show.) This is not just a "it is obvious" moment -- it has been outright shown by the show itself. Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 11:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Anew Returner

There has been a couple of attempts by IPs in the past few days to move Anew Returner down into the antagonists with the rest of the Innovators. They are also chancing her description to say that she is hiding the fact that she is being used to locate the Ptolemaios. However, there is no evidence that she is opposing the other protagonists of the series and nor that she is aware that she is being used to track the location of the Ptolemaios. While she may be a sleeper agent (and even saying that is OR), it is unclear how things will turn out in the next couple of episodes. --Farix (Talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though Anew's Innovator persona has taken over, it's still a little too early to move her with the other Innovators. For one, the persona has just appeared. Two, she hasn't done a whole lot under this new persona. And finally, we don't know how long this persona will remain in control or what will develop from it. --Farix (Talk) 23:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree as it is too soon to tell. In fact we had to wait near the end of this series to make finals adjustments. --KrebMarkt 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But she is a innovator and has been proven on the newest episode, she may not be a complete antagonist but she is still an innovator. I believe she should be moved to the Innovator section. >:O Katsuuu!! (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And if she remains with the Ptolemaios after the next episode? Just because she is an Innovator doesn't mean that she should be grouped with the rest of them. Tieria is also an Innovator, but he he is one of the main protagonists and grouped with the other protagonists instead of with the Innovators. It's not going to hurt to wait for the events play themselves out. --Farix (Talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We aren't going to move Anew & Louise episode after episode just reflecting what we think of the story that would a form of Personal Interpretation of the series. Bottom things aren't set definitively so will discuss this again near the end of the season and by then i'm sure that the plot will be cleared enough to reach a consensus about who belongs where. --KrebMarkt 07:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again Angas (talk · contribs) attempts to move it without discussing. He/she is also changing the description to imply that Anew knew all along that she was a sleeper/spy, which isn't supported by the episode. He/she is also adding a bit of there own analyst of the scene, which violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. I should note that most of Angas (talk · contribs) edits to this article, who also edits under the IP range of 122.2.x.x, are to move Anew into the antagonistic Innovators or to add in original research about Anews status. --Farix (Talk) 12:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No I agree, Anew Returner should be moved to the Antagonist section. She has been working as a mole all the time and been spying on Lyle and his friends. She was a villain from the start by her own choice and wasn't even brainwashed. Same goes for Louise. Even if Louise is loved by Saji she is still outright fighting them.--User:Thronedrei (User talk:Thronedrei) 11:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bring Stabity

Dude is dead & his article is not much...merge anyone? SilentmanX (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure none of them deserve their articles besides Ribbons, Regene and possibly Revive. Robtf (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I say we merge Bring's article since he appears to be dead. Perhaps we should wait on merging the others until we see how big a role they play like staka suggested. Shaneymike (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm for the merge, his article can't be expanded anyomore so their no point in keeping such a small artcile (Maine Coon Cat (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)).

I have an idea why don't we create keep Bring's article and add Divine in it like the Lockon Stratos article. User:Tylerwade123 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC).

Stabity? I thought Bring Stability sounds like a better translation and considering we have such weird names for the innovators like Revive Revival, Regene Regetta and Divine Nova, I really have not idea why it's Stabbity it doesn't sound right.--Jack Cox (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they messed up the English for his name? Or just went with what would sound better in Japanese. 86.144.21.128 (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they meant it to be "Stability", but so far what I have heard is "Stabity" or Stablity" in the anime.--Dark Destiny (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Murder is not a point of view.

Moved form User talk:TheFarix

You try saying murder is a point of view in a court of law and they will laugh at you. Seriously I know it is a heated word to use when applying it a show where killing is such a common thing. But if you think about it there are actually some ground rules that dictates what classifies as murder and what classifies as manslaughter. Am I really expected to seek out actual legal documents on the Internet and link them for something like this? I am really busy right now and I wouldn't be happy if I was forced to do so, but don't expect I wont if I am forced too. IN an attempt to spare me that trouble however let me give you some quick examples of cases that could be classified as manslaughter (in the show that made me write this topic) and others that can't.

"Prince Ali" (Ali Al Saarchez) takes Saji's sister for a ride, reveals his intentions and other personal dangerous matters, then shoot/stabs her to death. Now Saji's sister as a non combatant that was just talking with Ali was in no way attacking him and putting his life in danger, so he didn't kill her in combat. As such he intentionally killed her without just cause. This is murder.

Gundam fights example 1: The Gundams make an intervention and attack a cause of conflict. The soldiers shoot back and pose a danger. Now this example can go both ways in my opinion. The Gundams attacked with the intent to kill people that posed no immediate threat to them so they went out to murder these people. Entering the battle however as the soldiers fired back and the Gundams later killed them it can be argued that since they had already entered into the conflict it was no longer murder. Sionce this case could go eother way I would use "kill" instead of murder.

Gundam fights example 2; The Gundams are suddenly engaged by an enemy force that suddenly attack them. the Gundams fire back and shots down the enemy MS. This however is a clear case of killing in combat so here the word kill should be used.

Louise Halevy has already defeated the enemy and holds their life in her hands. The combat is over and Nena is her Prisoner of War. The code of conduct and the rules of war state that enemies if taken prisoner as Nena was, have the right to a fair hearing and a trial in a court. In the scene described however this is ignored by Louise Halevy as she kills a defenseless person. I.E it was outside of combat and was done intentionally. That is murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 19:14, March 2, 2009

That is entirely your point of view, one that others will disagree with. Unless you have a reliable source to back it up, don't reinsert it into the article. The neutral position is to say that Louise kills Nena after disabling Throne Drei. Leave it to the reader to decide if those actions constitute murder. Anything beyond that not only violates WP:NPOV but also WP:NOR as it is no longer a descriptive summary of events. --Farix (Talk) 01:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

so "the law" and the definition of murder found even in dictionaries are just my POV? Are you being serious? I can't leave it to the reader since it IS NOT a POV. It is an actual fact. I'll go look for if somebody the definition made inlaw somewhere. Meanwhile you can keep yourself company with these online dictionaries:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Murder

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=52547&dict=CALD

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

Oh and even Wikipedia itself that links to even more sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Just give it up man. I am right and you are wrong this time.Thronedrei (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are interpreting the scene as murder. You don't even have a reliable source to back up your interpretation of the scene. Therefor it is both POV and original research. No mater how much you try to rationalize your point of view, it is still just a point of view. The neutral way of describing the scene is to say that one character kills the other. --Farix (Talk) 01:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with TheFarix. Calling it murder is original research. You are personally deciding that (using your own dictionaries) that it was an "unlawful killing" and primarily had "malicious forethought." You are basically ascribing motive and judgment to the actions. Unless it is specifically referred to as murder within the media, call it what is it neutrally: character x killed character y. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Using my own dictionaries? you can use ANY dictionaries. They are all the same. The problem with your logic is that it isn't logical. If a it was stated in the show that what she did was murder you could claim it is just an "inuniverse" thing. (I don't remember the name you use for it) and as such has no basis in reality. If I use definition made by the law and use things that happened in the show to prove they fill the criteria you can claim the show itself is not a reliable source. But this is not a matter of discussion. Murder is not a point of view.Thronedrei (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(and I meant quoting the dictionaries you linked to). Yes, it is logical. And no, if it was stated in the show that it was murder, then you can call it murder. You, however, are applying American laws and definitions to a fictional television series to support your own point of view. Calling it murder is a point of view, yours and yours alone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course nobody in the show will call it murder. The character was considered a terrorist by those that murdered her so they wont call it that. Furthermore nobody except the murderer even saw it happen so there is no chance for anyone to call it for what it was. Speaking of which you might want to change this too then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Al-Saachez it says Ali murdeered Kinue. Obviously he did but they never actually used the word "murder" in the show when talking about the incident.

On another note, how do you give out warnings? I feel you guys are wrong and your overturning my edits is in direct violation of wikipedia rules. I would like to report your reedits as vandalism of the article. How do I go about reporting you?Thronedrei (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Then it isn't murder, period. It is purely your interpretation of the events, which is original research. And sorry, but no, the overturning of your edits is not a violation of Wikipedia guidelines nor policies and they are not vandalism. Your attempting to reporting either of us will only serve to get you yourself in more trouble for inappropriate warnings. Your edit warring has already been reported for administrator review. Administrators will look at the actions of all editors involved, but I highly doubt they will see anyone as acting inappropriately except for you for edit warring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No but seriously I really want to report you. I feel your actions are vandalism and that you are now trying to suppress information and bludgeon/threaten me into seeing things your way. If the mods consider me reporting your abuse of the warning system that should be up to them to decide no? You really think I would report you if I didn't feel you were the ones in wrong? AS a sidenote I never editwarred more than Farix did. He had his opinion and I had mine. He wanted me to provide a source to support my edits but in turn did not provide any himself. How is what he did any different? If anything he was the one that editwarred since he was the one that first (in my opinion maliciously) overturned my own addition. Now, again -- how do you report people?Thronedrei (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who violated WP:3RR or is POV pushing. Murder is a non-neutral term no matter how many times you try to shake that stick in an attempt to say otherwise. You did not provide a single reliable source that describes Louise's actions as murder. Pointing to a dictionary is only good when the definition of a word is in dispute. However, describing Louise's character's actions is purely your interpretation of her actions compared to the definition, which is analysis based on a synthesis, which is a form of original research. Finally, disagreeing with your POV and removing your POV inclusions from the article is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Moreover, reporting our disagreements by calling it vandalism will result in the claim being dismissed. --Farix (Talk) 03:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to drop by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and/or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My only question: is it called murder in the series itself? If so, then use "murder" here. If not, then use "kill" instead. This is the kind of thing in which it is perfectly fine to rely on primary sources such as the show itself. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Or find a reliable reviewer who says they were. However even then you might have to find several to not appear to be giving it undue weight.じんない 09:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And the answer is: No, it has not been called "murder" in the series. However, the event occurred towards the end of the latest episode which aired this past Sunday. But it's unlikely to be referred to as "murder" in the series given that there are only four episode left. --Farix (Talk) 12:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As said then, find some reliable reviewers who claim it's murder. If we have a significant enough of them, then we will change it. If we don't we could still partially adapat it. However if the show doesn't say that then we can't call it that, unless it's based on a real-life incident where it was called murder, which Gundam isn't.じんない 04:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Team Trinity First Season Antagonists

Does anybody else think that Team Trinity should be placed under First Season Antagonists rather than Other? Shaneymike (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's argueable whether Team Trinity are actual antagonists. An antagonists is a character or group of chracters that opposes the hero or main characters. I can't say that Team Trinity oppose the other Gundam Misters even if the other Gundam Misters deplored the Trinities tactics and Setsuna provoked a fight with them once. --Farix (Talk) 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Is there a reason why these characters article want to get merged?:

Feldt Grace, Lasse Aeon, Ian Vashti, Andrei Smirnov, Ribbons Almark, Regene Regetta, Revive Revival and Healing Care.

There are articles that should be merged & ones that shouldn't. The Aeolia Schenberg article was merged & I don't know why, but anyway there are articles that should & should not be merged.

Here's list:

Merged:

• Healing Care
• Revive Revival
• Billy Katagiri

Not Merged:

• Feldt Grace
• Lasse Aeon
• Ian Vashti
• Andrei Smirnov
• Ribbons Almark
• Regene Regetta

Have your say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.195.201 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Defintly keep the articles of Feldt Grace, Ribbons Almark, Regene Regetta and Andrei Smirnov. I think we should wait until the series is over to see if the articles of Lasse Aeon and Ian Vashti should be merged.(70.140.38.244 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)).

So far, no one has provided evidence that these characters meet the notability criteria required for a standalone article. They are nothing more then an extensive plot summary which are in violation of Wikipedia's policies. --Farix (Talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the list above, the only ones that should be currently merged are the articles of Healing Care and Revive Revival. I think those articles should be merged into a separate Innovator page, similar to the Trinty page; which I have no idea why that was merged.(Maine Coon Cat (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)).

Can you find any significant coverage by reliable third-party source for any of the other characters? Because without it, they will have to be merged. --Farix (Talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is know need to merge the articles because they all help the story insome way besides lets not turn this page into another gundam wing article okay.--Tylerwade123 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ribbons Almark is the primary villain of the show, so we definitely don't want to merge his article. And the director of the show said from the get-go that Regene would play an important role yet, so perhaps we should keep him as well; plus he's Tieria's genetic twin. I also think maybe we should keep Andrei Smirnov as he has killed his own father and played a pivotal role in the second season. Shaneymike (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Their role in the plot is irrelevant. Whether they get standalone articles is based on if the character has received significant coverage by independent reliable sources. (see WP:NOTE) But even if one or two character's did pass the notability guideline, they still contain far too much plot details and need to be trimmed down to 1/4 to 1/5 their current size in order to bring the descriptions in line with WP:NOT#PLOT. --Farix (Talk) 22:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When I have the time, I'll try to make Ribbons article less plot summary. That is, if nobody else does it in the meantime. I'm still not exactly sure how Mecha Anime HQ [mahq.net] fails to meet the standard for independent reliable sources though. As for Healing Care, Revive Revival, and maybe Regene Regetta, perhaps we should considering merging them into one article like I said earlier and adding the rest of the Innovators - Anew Returner, Divine Nova, and Bring Stability - to the article as well. The druggie pilots from Gundam Seed - Shani Andras, Clotho Buer, and Orga Sabnak - initially had standalone articles, but eventually they were merged into one. Why not do the same with the Innovators? Except for Ribbons of course. He's the one pulling a lot of the strings in this series? Shaneymike (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The innovators are just named grunts. There isn't enough information to give them a merged article of their own. Just do what you did with the merged Trinity Article and delete it. The Trinities had more reliable sources than the Innovators do and they were removed. Thronedrei (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already begun working on Ribbons' article to make it less plot summary. Any suggestions or edits are greatly appreciated. Shaneymike (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think all the characters pages just need remodeling which I think we should do after the 2 season is over, I think the only page that needs to be merged is Healing Care, as Regene may be the key to something later in the series as Revive Revival he may be Lyle Dylandy's rival later on so we should keep him to.--Tylerwade123 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are these articles listed for merger?

• Andrei Smirnov
• Ribbons Almark
• Regene Regetta
• Louise Halevy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.195.190 (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Because there hasn't been any significant coverage by reliable third-party sources, which is required for a stand-alone article. --Farix (Talk) 12:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Farix, I don't see you listing any of the Universal Century and Cosmic Era stand-alone articles for merger. Shaneymike (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not required to do every Gundam series at once. Nor is it required to do one series before another. I work with series that I'm most familure with, thus I am better able to judge their content when it comes to rewriting, original research, and etc., then a series that I'm not as familure with. --Farix (Talk) 19:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Shaneymike (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still having a hard time understanding what you mean by reliable third-party sources. I mean how is that the sources used for the Gundam Meisters' articles meet the criteria but not the sources used for Ribbons or Louise? Those two are very important characters and it would be a shame to seem them go. So tell me, what is the difference between the sources used for those two and the Gundam Meisters? Shaneymike (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They're not. All the character articles have been tagged for the same issues. The only thing the Gundam Meisters' article lack is a merge tag. But that's because they are last on the list, in part to head off arguments that "lesser" character haven't been merged. But seriously, it seems you are taking an all or nothing attitude in cleaning up these articles. --Farix (Talk) 21:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then why don't YOU clean them up? Or is it your job to merely destroy other Wikipedians' hard work? Shaneymike (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have been. I've been removing clear original research from article and slowly merging articles of non-notable characters, as is standard for cleanup. --Farix (Talk) 21:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, I think that this isn't needed. I'm mean you're basically just merging articles that have been open for a long time. Anyway instead of threating to merge the articles how about you improve them yourself User:TheFarix.--Rebelprince (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this isn't needed, I think you should try cleaning the article up yourself instead of going so far as to merge the articles when everyone of them are important.--Rebelprince (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) You're the one claiming that they are notable, so you should be the one providing reliable third-party sources. The articles have been tagged for lacking notability and third party sources for over two months now. Given the high visibility of these articles by fans, that should have been more then enough time to search for reliable third-party sources. But not a single editor has don't that, instead adding paragraph, after paragraph, after paragraph of plot details, throwing in lots of their own unsubstantiated original research in the process. --Farix (Talk) 00:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand what exactly qualifies as a reliable third-party sources. As for adding paragraph, after paragraph, after paragraph of plot details, why can't you fix that? Seriously. It seems as though all you do is merge or delete. You don't edit. Shaneymike (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I support all merges. However, if you wanted to improve the article, you would need to add reception and concept/creation notes. A good example is Cloud Strife. The lede covers the basic points of the entire article, it has a fairly large creation section, a large section featuring appearances (in which there are many references to the games/films he is in), and then a section for reception, which has reviewers' views on the character, as well as his placement in "Top -- Lists". That is what these articles need to make it to GA. Outside sources need to comment on the character, and notes about the character's creation should be present. None of these characters have any of these things, which is why they are better suited condensed into a list. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* I give up. If you feel it is necessary to merge all these articles, I won't argue with you. Shaneymike (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Feldt Grace

1. Lasse Aeon
2. Ian Vashti

These three should definitely get merged. Two of them are "bridge bunnies" and they are all background characters that aren't notable enough to warrant articles of their own. Speaking of which, I know we propose articles here that we think should be merged and other people can voice their opinion on the idea. But who does the merging in the end and how much/little do we need for an article to get merged?Thronedrei (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)