Talk:SDF-1 Macross

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SDF-1 Macross redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Redirect, 6 October 2019, see discussion.
no consensus, which defaults to keep, but does not mean keep as is. Consensus was that much work is needed across this group of articles., 8 March 2009, see discussion.

Anime and manga Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Armament

I got the weapon stats from the old Palladium RPG. Using the pictures shown of the Macross in the book, I could confirm the beam cannons, but not the rest, so I left it all in a seperate part. SAMAS 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first Robotech RPG from Palladium Books is no longer considered canon for Robotech, and was never canon for Macross. The picture recently added was a piece of fan art from the Robotech Art 2 book. 1-54-24 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nononono. I mean the production sketches in the RPG book, which showed the Macross from different angles in both forms. SAMAS 19:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Style

While the writing of this article is fine for fans of both series, a Wikipedia article should be something anyone can read and intuitively understand. Bouncing back and forth between the two series like this is going to be confusing to the uninitiated reader the article should be aimed at (to be blunt, we've got plenty of fan pages already, this here should be for anyone). I'm going to toss into the proverbial hat the suggestion that we consider dividing the story lines and details into two seperate parts, one for each series, both can share the page obviously, but it would make this alot easier for casual readers to understand. This article as it stands essentially tries to tell both stories and facts from both simultaneously, when in fact they both could almost deserve their own pages. Again if you've seen both it all makes sense but a wikipedia article, like a real encyclopedia article, shouldn't require a reader to have enough foreknowledge they could write the article just to understand it. It also might help the page lose its B rating.

Terrible Article

Seriously, this thing is a mess. Written in a unobjective tone, and it basically reads like plot summaries of Macross and the first third of Robotech. There's little-to-no information on the actual ship: weapons systems, dimensions, modes of transport, etc etc.

I care, but not enough to re-write it. Maybe someone else does? Use the Macross Compendium as a source, it basically tells you EVERYTHING. 66.245.17.183 06:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)kazuo[reply]

Shocked and surprised

That a major topic can like this can survive for so long without any sources of references or reliable third person sources WP:RS or WP:PROVEIT

Dwanyewest (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive to mix both series

I find mixing both series together to be offensive, as a Macross fan and purist. Robotech should only be allowed its own article and not mix it into the original series.

Someone please do something before I go deleting any Robotech references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkmax1974 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It actually mixes the two pretty well, and since Macross and the first half of Robotech are pretty similar minus small improvements for the later, there is no reason to separate them into different pages. Character pages, where other media branches the two franchises apart completely, are a different matter. 139.55.27.99 (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "offensive" the article is to you Darkmax. And please, take your biases elsewhere. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plots on fictional characters and things.

I've found out that their using plot templates on fictional characters or things. They should be on Flims only if they're too long. 96.5.241.159 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very insincere of you since you make it seem like you just found out about plot templates being used on fictional characters when you have been reducing plot summaries on these articles for months. This template is not specifically meant for film articles. Aspects (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on SDF-1 Macross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]