Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Gundam/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

I have Deleted REDLINKS that are Deleted Pages. Kathleen.wright5 12:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gelgoog

Holy crap! I say this article is pure ruin, try to fix it and I realized it need complete re-written (all I can do are reword heading and spec removal). Load of POV, badly organize format and maybe even copyvio (suspecious writing style). Anyone plan to NFD? It will get my vote in current form. L-Zwei 05:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support stubification and move to the list of universal century mobile suit page. Actually, a lot of this level of suit could be placed there rather than the bland list of suits it is now. Kyaa the Catlord 06:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Working on master list

Realized the thing is outdate, now working to fix it. In order to shorten list abit, I think it would be better to only list unit by their first appearance (so no Zaku IIF list for ten times), unless it has redesign. Any opinion? L-Zwei 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Next step is to replace red links with Ja link. It's better than creat new article that non-notable (and one who truly want some info can translate them). L-Zwei 05:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Finished de-red link for mech, some work title/faction are still red link but I'm too lazy to fix those now. Next step is adding new/missing stuff, then add several Ja links to no-article entries. but there are two things I wouldlike to ask you guys first.

I concur. We should try to merge and trim content where possible to reduce the amount of articles floating around up there that can't really be given proper treatment. Jtrainor 12:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't List of mobile weapons be moved to List of mobile units, since not all of the units listed there are weapons? --Silver Edge 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, but I think Mobile Weapon is the basket term for every mech type (not that I like the term). It may derived from 登場機動兵器 , but I'm not certain. Anyone has more information? L-Zwei 06:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
機動兵器 is Mobile weapons, the term mobile unit is kinda strange. (The only non-weapon is the SP-W03 space pod, and is not on the list anyway) MythSearchertalk 06:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reorganize test, the MSG section on master list would look like this.

Earth Federation

Principality of Zeon

Look a little weird, but I guess we will get use to it. Well, at least Cosmic Era article don't have problem with model number part as it can be put in description. Any comment? L-Zwei 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Put model number behind name is truly weird, maybe italic model number may work? (for entry without article, I'm thinking of bolding name L-Zwei 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Model number in italics works, but it can probably work without the italics too. Wouldn't using bold text for entries without an article be distracting? --Silver Edge 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The idea was to make name stand out from model number, but I see that italic model number should be enough (or just re-sort without italic, need to test later). L-Zwei 05:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Cosmic Era mobile units

Speaking of List of Cosmic Era mobile units, I propose that it be reorganized in alphabetical order by name (not codename, so GAT-X105 Strike would be under "S") instead of organizing it "by faction and unit type", which L-Zwei stated "can be troublesome". It would improve the list by having only one entry per mobile unit instead of some mobile units having multiple entries, such as mobile units that were stolen by another faction (e.g. the Duel, Blitz, Aegis, etc.) or were used by multiple factions (e.g. the Strike). Also it would make redirecting articles to the list easier, such as the GAT-X103 Buster Gundam article which redirects to "Prototypes" under the "Earth Alliance/OMNI Enforcer" section, even though the Buster has three entries in total on the list (in the "Clyne Faction/Three Ships Alliance", "Earth Alliance/OMNI Enforcer", and "ZAFT" sections). If there are no objections, I will make the changes. --Silver Edge 00:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Great idea. At first, I have thought of organize by title >> faction >> name (listed by producer, not operator) but your idea of get rid of faction sub-section altogether is good (I would wait and see result, may worth adapt to master list as well). And sort by name instead of model number is a must do (definity must done on master list too). L-Zwei 06:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

added more cultural references on both the Gundam and Gundam (mobile suit) page

I don't know if the Gundam page entry should go to the mobile suit page or not, can anyone give some thoughts? MythSearchertalk 13:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Also added Guntank and more Gundam reference, kinda feels good, feels very good as I feel the In your face feeling to all those deletionists who keep claiming there can be no cultural significance in these things. MythSearchertalk 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S.2. Funnel, Psycommu system, Amuro Ray and Earth Federation all have their fair share of cultural influence referenced. I knew of their existence, too bad it took me this long to find them(most are pretty old news). Now I can go back to merging Mobile weapons to their relative series pages. MythSearchertalk 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Good job, I known we can count on you ;) . On bit and funnel, while I think remote weapon may exist predate Gundam, Square's Saga Frontier for PS1 use the exact term, Bit and Funnel to call them (as well as V-MAX from Layzner, but that's another story). L-Zwei 03:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If we can get a direct quote from Saga Frontier, it would be good. The funnel part is useful, but the bit part is not, since a lot of other games uses it as well and I think that term predates Gundam. MythSearchertalk 03:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
They appear as equipable part for robot character, I guess some FAQ at Gamefaqs may be useful. L-Zwei 08:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Mobile Suit

Please help me understand recent Template:Infobox Mobile Suit activity by expanding Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit#Ahem and thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 19:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what is the current status of the infobox issue, I just want someone who got more knowledge in using one help me on the S Gundam page since it is not using an infobox right now and I do not want to fit the information into the article and make it look bad right after I have done something to correct the really horribly sad fan style incorrect imaginary information page. (And It is still pretty sad, but at least the information should be quite correct right now, so anyone with better English than I do, please try to do so copyedit to it, Thank you) MythSearchertalk 07:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope an update will emerge but progress is slow for lack of consensus. I believe the differing parties are engaged in a resolution process occupying their attention right now. Watch the template's talk page for resumed activity. If you want to accelerate change in the template then go there and express yourself. – Conrad T. Pino 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I had expressed myself in the above discussions before in this talk page section 30 and 36, and I think I made myself quite clear in the first few reply on them. It seems like nobody counted me as one in the consensus count and I don't really care as long as someone can help me or teach me set up one (I have no idea on how to use an infobox template at all) and don't get into an edit war after I have used the wrong version. MythSearchertalk 07:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Public Service Announcement about Anonymous vandal

Just thought I'd let the project community know, there's an anonymous Earthlink user currently engaging a WP:POINT campaign against Gundam articles I've edited (and a few I haven't) thanks to disagreements in a previous AfD. This user has one registered account, and a variety of anonymous IP addresses he edits from. If you note questionable edits by any of the following addresses, I suggest you revert them if you feel the quality of the article is affected.

The latter is unquestionably a sockpuppet account. I'm going to have a checkuser ran on it in the near future just to be sure, but it's well within a reasonable likelihood right now. This user has attempted to use these accounts to influence an AfD (see the Zeong's talk page or ask User:Jtrainor for details) and is now using them to avoid charges of vandalism and 3RR violations. It's worth noting that he and User:A Man In Black are cooperating in pinning down questionable reverts to articles I've edited as well.

Those of you more familiar with Wiki-fu than I, is there any way we can get some kind of administrative action taken against him? He claims that using Earthlink means none of the "vandal" edits were his, which I find laughable, but it sounds like a decent idea given Wikipedia's stupidly-lenient stance on anonymous users. At any rate, keep your eyes open, we're not out of the woods yet by a long shot. MalikCarr 22:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the better place to report this person. I doubt this person has ever been blocked (has he supposedly "vandalized" enough to merit a WP:AIV report?), so they probably won't rangeblock, but it's better to get some admins to review the situation, as they can take action. hbdragon88 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the proper policies to follow through with this, but blatant POINT revert warring as well as dodging 3RR violations using anonymous addresses has to be against guidelines SOMEWHERE. MalikCarr 00:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're going to need to link to some vandalistic edits somewhere, Malik. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, before going on the vandalism path of blocking, the 3RR report page might be useful if the reporter himself did not go into full revert war mode. (Yet it would be kinda hard to get the other person into 3RR violation that way.) MythSearchertalk 09:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Should we really place him in the vandal alert section? I mean, he/she is not really deleting stuff and/or adding in wrong information, it is more like a dispute in whether what things required sourcing and what does not and tagging the in-universe problem that most deletionists just view as THE perfect point in listing the articles for deletion. I will try to ask him/her to question the sourcing in a better manner, like in the talk page or here(which would be easier for us to track anyway). I'd say we deal with it in a more civil manner and try to built a common ground as well as improving the articles to a more standardized and less targetable by deletionist version. MythSearchertalk 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale required

These two 'fair use' images Image:Rengo2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rengo2.jpeg and Image:Zaft2.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zaft2.jpeg‎ are used in a number of articles but are lacking in proper 'fair use' rationaleGundamsRus 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Link please. Kyaa the Catlord 03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I dont know how to get the page without the image showing here, but there are the URL'sGundamsRus 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Not related to this, but here is how to display the links without them showing, it also applies to anything that you want it to link instead of doing other stuff. Place a : [[:Image:Rengo2.jpeg]] (results Image:Rengo2.jpeg) inside the [[]] in front of the image or category does the trick. MythSearchertalk 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationales have been added. In the future, tag an image with no fair use rationale using the appropriate template; don't remove it from the article. There's a bot that does that if the image is deleted by an administrator for lack of FUR. MalikCarr 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

article status

Should we follow the other wiki projects and addin the article status in the WP:GUNDAM tag? Say, we also set up our standards and label the articles separated from the wikipedia one so that we can kinda categorize articles that should be worked on first and the ones that we can focus on to bring it up to the real wiki FA standards? Say, start class would be the same, and we have pass class on articles that just met the wiki standards(would be still start class on wiki), basic class that goes with B class and candidate would be articles that needs extensive attention in bringing up quality to get to the GA or FA status. Once it got to GA or FA, we can drop the project status tag. I'd say the series articles should be focused on now since they are the basics of the project and if we can get enough series articles as GA or FA, we can get into the featured topic and would be less likely to get targeted by deletionists. MythSearchertalk 16:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Jtrainor 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll get behind that motion. It would give this project some more credibility and also show that it has an intent to create well-written and sourced articles, not just "fancruft" like was being alleged in the big AfD festival last year. You may recall that some of the more draconian deletionists were pushing to delete WP:Gundam as a whole due to the lack of "any decent articles" being created by it. >_> MalikCarr 02:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
What? That's ridiculous. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous or not, such things were said. Go look at some of the AfDs from back then if you don't believe him. Jtrainor 07:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And the reason is because we did not do much on a few articles within the hundreds we have in like 3 months. MythSearchertalk 08:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Total agree. Surely half or so of current article would get "deletable" status, but at least it will be easier to identify gems from craps. L-Zwei 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, presumably, if something appears to be "deletable", it's a merge candidate unless it's unsalvagable junk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. Now, we kinda have an agreement here, anyone got and idea how we can change the tag template to include the status and AMIB here proposed another good idea that we might be able to label the merge candidates in that as well. MythSearchertalk 09:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

artcile Striker Pack METEOR

There was a Striker pack article, I tried my best to make it look better and moved it to Addon systems or something but it still look extremely bad, and I have no regrets that it got deleted. Then someone recreated the Striker pack article and it got moved to the current location. I'd say we nominate it for AfD and don't include it in our project for now, since METEOR got only like less than 10 episode's appearance and if all the addons of the MSs cannot get enough notability, METEOR surely does not by itself. MythSearchertalk 09:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree. The METEOR actually plays a role in the story line, as being an almost stand alone weapon, rather then just a means of propulsion/weapon carriage. Plus, it also has more notability in the real world also. For example, there are plastic models in japanof only the METEOR, whereas the same cannot be said of any striker pack.
What kind of bothers me is the name of the article: "Striker Pack METEOR" Shouldn't it just be "METEOR" plain and simple? The article never even mentions "Striker Pack", and what with the METEOR acronym, it wouldn't be right (an embedded pack?). The article also says that it isn't a Weapon pack.
That said, the article is mainly in-universe and without references, meaning it probably IS a candidate for AfD. I just wanted to say it's because of THAT, and not because it's as little notable as the other striker packs.happypal (Talk | contribs) 20:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The METEOR isn't a Striker Pack. It wasn't even designed by the EA, and they are the only ones that use those. It's METEOR, nothing more, nothing less. Jtrainor 20:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be merge with List of Cosmic Era vehicles and aircraft. L-Zwei 07:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to refrain from input on this issue; my CE knowledge is quite limited (as is my desire to improve CE articles, because Gundam SEED is rubbish), and I only edit things I have at least some experience with. MalikCarr 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur, L-Zwei. Jtrainor 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is somebody recreated a deleted article, with less impressive features and more fan speculation and pov. Notability is not about how much it contributed in the story, but of actual real-life aspects. Currently the page is pretty much just trash and highly inaccurate, it should be merged to where the ship Eternal is, since METEOR is essentially just a removable cannon on it, or be deleted and hope for more good sources other than 3 models that are just SEED dedicated ones and not the HG, MG series. The modellers in Japan didn't even care to build one and show it in the hobby magazines, it got pretty poor reception and popularity even compared to Strike dagger and the packs. MythSearchertalk 03:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm gonna start working on a Formula Project re-write

All the F90/F91 stuff along with SNRI could stand to be merged into a single article that also talks about the model kit series; I think this should clean up that particular corner nicely.

Also, can someone please archive this page? It's getting rather long... Jtrainor (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a heads up

Keep an eye out for TTN. He's currently merging and redirecting hundreds of fiction articles (and is the subject of an arbcom case at the moment) against consensus, so it would probably be a good idea to revert him on sight if he messes with stuff we're working on. Jtrainor (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As a reminder, it is never "a good idea to revert on sight" as it is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. GundamsRus 207.69.137.11 (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As a reminder, I really don't care what you think. Jtrainor (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe what he is saying is not what he thinks, unless it is very obvious disruptive edits, reverting on sight is really uncivil and is not assuming good faith. Deletionists and mergists are working to improve the articles in their own way, they might be wrong, but always staying in a position to talk things out before accusing others should help the situation more than jumping into conclusion immediately. MythSearchertalk 09:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
What TTN is doing is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS and Five Pillars. The arbcom unfortunately doesn't have the balls to take care of him though. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Alternately, the Arbcom disagrees with you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering the past mass Gundam AfDs, I'm not sure why any of you would think that this is a new issue or even something unique to TTN. Wether or not it is against consensus is disputed, though, so while that might be some of your opinions, others reading this should come to their own conclusions. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the primary guidelines for just about everything on Wikipedia are currently disputed, one wonders if there is any consensus at all. What TTN and others are doing IS causing ripples throughout WP, there have been threads on AN and ANI on these patterns of behaviors, an arbcom case and much discussion on talk pages pretty much every day since he started doing this.... His "contributions" are certainly questionable, if not disruptive. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Striker Pack‎, again

The article Striker Pack‎ was recreated, again. MythSearchertalk 07:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the second time the article has been recreated in the last 2 days, it was recreated and deleted on January 1, 2008. [1] I believe it is the same user who just recreated it again. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest redirecting it to the appropriate location, then asking an admin to protect the redirect. Jtrainor (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yet another striker pack article, this time at Striker packs. --Silver Edge (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Are they created by the same user? is there anyway to check? MythSearchertalk 07:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I have merged it again. MythSearchertalk 07:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there isn't a bias to linking toward certain sites. Namely, people seem to take it as given that Gundam articles should link to MAHQ and/or ANN. Yet some sites such as Gunota Headlines get removed as 'link spam'. I find this questionable. MAHQ and ANN are strong resources but they're just as much independent fan sites as Gunota is. Specifically for the latter, the bulk of info for the English speaking fandom comes from that site. On something like the SEED movie article, I don't see why it's more preferable to link to the ANN page when even that just has a few guesses at info.--HellCat86 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gunota Headlines is a very good site, but the only problem with it is that it's a blog which is hosted by blogger. On Wp:external links, blogs is not allowed to be external links based on rule #12. I wish they do become a real website so I can use their info as sources for articles since all the sources they used in their old updates are now dead. Rezumop (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, Gunota once stay in EL section (along with MAHQ and few more site). But after some user (it's two years ago and my memory is blur now) insist to add certain link to message board in EL. Cause some lame edit war, it caught attention from another user who decide to remove all fan site except Gundam Wiki. While some other site come back, Gunota, being a blog, never return in that place. L-Zwei (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember removing a link to some message board Gundam RPG from the Gundam article at one point. Jtrainor (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [2] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gundam 00

Sorry if this is in the wrong spot to discuss this, but I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia.

But I am beginning expansion of the character list of the new Gundam Series, Gundam 00, giving major characters their own pages, and organizing the list (cause it goes on for a while). I just thought I'd give a heads up. --MissEzri (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a fictional character need to pass Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) before getting its own article? --Silver Edge (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats why the articles aren't up yet, I'm just starting to work on them. I understand the the series is still young, but more information is getting released and by the end of the series they will for sure deserve a page of their own I feel.--MissEzri (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that certain main characters should be notable enough to have their individual article. I mean, even minor characters of OVAs like Sven Cal Bayan have their own articles, so why not the main characters if 00? 165.21.154.89 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs merging

Leo_(mobile_suit) needs to be either fixed up or merged; it seems it got skipped over during the work on List of articles. The reason I'm poking about this is because it is currently up from AfD, with a remarkably Gavin collins-like rationale (aka, the guy who nommed it obviously didn't do more than give the article a cursory glance). Jtrainor (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from such violations of WP:AGF by making assumptions/comments like: the guy who nommed it obviously didn't do more than give the article a cursory glance. GundamsRus (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Before my reply, I must fully state that this reply is not assuming good faith and is meant to be fun only. Reply The first rule of AGF is never talk about AGF. Please see WP:AAGF. MythSearchertalk 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF specifically says that it does not mean other editors are immune to criticism. When the nominator decribes something as a 'game guide' when it's clearly mentioned as part of an anime is clear indication that the nominator either did not read or did not understand the article. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a few articles that got recreated with the same content after merging. Like the AGX-04 Gerbera Tetra and White Base which I figured some new comer or anon account accursed me of eating the whole article without permission. Just merge it per the consensus here into the list, forget about the AfD process. MythSearchertalk 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion in WT:ANIME

There's a discussion in WT:ANIME about the quality of most Gundam articles. You can participate over at "The Gundam Mess".--Nohansen (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:198.85.213.1

A majority, if not all, of the edits on Gundam-related articles by 198.85.213.1 (talk · contribs) fail WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. He continues to re-insert his original research and point of view after being reverted and warned on his talk page numerous times. If he continues on this path, would it warrant a block? --Silver Edge (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reported the user to AN/I, no admin replied as of now, adding your two cents there might help in increasing the attention. MythSearchertalk 13:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the After War article

To After War Gundam X. It is not really all that noteable unfortunately, and it didn't even have the project tag-- I saw no familiar names in the edit history as well.

If anyone thinks the page is salvageable, feel free to undo me or whatever vOv Jtrainor (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What should we do about this?

Land battleship is a huge mess. The topic most certainly is not exclusive to Gundam in general-- people were talking about such things since before anime was invented. It needs a MAJOR rewrite. Jtrainor (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm mainly mentioning it here because I want to know what you guys think we should do with the Gundam-related material. The article itself is outside our scope, of course. Jtrainor (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless a well written article is there, the trivial appearance in Gundam might be able to stand on its own. If no aritcle talks about real world theories of land battleships, then I would suggest either delete it or just ignore its existence and hope that deletionists don't blame us on not fixing it. MythSearchertalk 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F90_%28Gun%29

...why would anyone assume the P90 had anything to do with the F90? Jtrainor (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiQuote

Do you guys do WikiQuote? wikiquote:Category:Gundam wikiquote:Gundam 70.55.84.42 (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead?

No one's edited here for some time... Jtrainor (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is not much to be discussed, I guess. Most articles are still not up to par, yet it is too much work to do anything about them. MythSearchertalk 12:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I should think there should be a bit being done at least on the Gundam 00 stuff, since it's new. Jtrainor (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, since it is new, these are the two reasons that I do not want to touch them: 1) lack of sources due to it being new. 2) new fans become random editors and keep adding tons of unsourced stuff back in without even trying to care for any policies. There are much work to do, like organizing the minor articles to lists and removing the excess stuff out of them, yet it seems to be a lot of work and too little experts on out-of-universe style writers are around for this project. MythSearchertalk 21:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Kinda important To do item

The fictional wars and battles like One Year War, Gryps Conflict and Battle of Axis should be either deleted, merged, or at least given sources of notability. The Category:Gundam Wars should be deleted as well since sooner or later a deletionist is going to list it as CfD anyway and I see no point in keeping it as well as triggering another mass AfD nomination war. MythSearchertalk 18:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


clean up of list article

Anyone want to have a go at cleaning up List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile units? If nobody wants to do it, I'm happy to take a punt. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert on 00, have a go. MythSearchertalk 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am no expert on Gundam fullstop, so I'd prefer someone from here had a go first, if I have a go, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth because the article will be end up being 5 paragraphs long (all that specification cruft would go to start with). --Allemandtando (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I agree with starting it from scratch and build up from real sources and encyclopedic material. Have a go, I will find sources to add in afterwards. I cannot do anything to the current list since I have no idea how to improve it to suit MOS and out of universe perspective and such, I can do much better with an article that tones in a correct perspective, then include sources in it. MythSearchertalk 17:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, the majority of Gundam-related lists are in a complete mess and require complete rewrites. Frozen Slime (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 282 articles are assigned to this project, of which 98, or 34.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject Gundam}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Single list

I have noticed that the current navigation template, {{Early Universal Century Mobile weapons}} and {{Gundam}} are too difficult to navigate, as they contain way too many topics. As such I propose:

  • Creating a single list of "Mobile suits" (per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates), without any content, except maybe a proper lead (Such a list can easily be upgraded to FL status by adding a proper lead).
  • I recommend a sortable table be used for this, with columns "name" (with link to article or list entry), "faction" (etc. - to list Earth Federation, etc.), and series (with the column being colored, and completed y/n, e.g. Comparison of virtual machines#More details)
  • Removing that content from the template.
  • Splitting the detailed content from {{Gundam}} into series specific templates
  • Let only links to the series remain in {{Gundam}}.
  • Putting series specific templates only where necessary, but {{Gundam}} on all project articles.
  • If you would like, I can add it to the worklist of WP:ANIME/CLEANUP.

G.A.S 06:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is something that, frankly, has been needing done for a long time (at the same time, all - or at least most - of the seperate Mobile Suit/weapon/vehicle/etc. articles should be merged into lists and then split one-by-one as proper real world notability, etc. can be established and enough sourced, non-trivial information can be added to support a seperate article); however, it should be noted that {{Early Universal Century Mobile weapons}} and {{Gundam}} are not the only two Gundam nav templates to be considered in this cleanup, more can be found at Category:Gundam templates (but note that not all of these are nav templates, and there's probably one or two floating around that aren't categorized there [yet]). —Dinoguy1000 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is master list but nobody care about it any more -_- . L-Zwei (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I meant something like List of mobile weapons, but in a table as above. G.A.S 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Similar to one use in Great Old One article? L-Zwei (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good suggestion, problem here is, a master list of all mobile weapons with tables seems to be too lengthy. (The UC one itself would be too lengthy anyway) Should it be separated by series instead? MythSearchertalk 08:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Separate lists for series... Is that not currently the case? (I presume not). That could work -- but then the master list should list all mobile weapons as a normal list, e.g. List of Captain Tsubasa characters, with no details, but with a proper lead. There should be no redlinks on such a list though, you can use {{autolink}} for this (Use {{main}} to link to sublists, do not use piped links). G.A.S 05:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, for lengthy I mean the size of the article would be larger than 32kb, in which wikipedia would start giving warnings about some browsers cannot load data over that size. If I master list is a must, then I would suggest first forget about the variations, just the main anime series, and if the size is smaller than 32kb, add in the manga and novel units, if it is bigger than 32kb, use the {{main}} template to separate them to series or at least timelines. MythSearchertalk 07:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Since List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units is an obsolete list, start by convert it may be good test (it is first/classic setting and seperate it from alternate timeline should be reasonable). If it goes well, the master list will be cutted by half. L-Zwei (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

TTN on the rampage

As usual, in his rush to delete as much as possible, he's just spitting out copy/paste rationales without even reading the articles in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Anime_and_manga

Jtrainor (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Most gundam articles are unreadable

I stumbled across a few of this projects articles and there is no polite way to put this - they are complete and utter nonsense to anyone but Gundam fans. The two biggest problems are:

  • completely in-universe upto and including treating made-up pseduo-science like it's real and therefore normal and understandable to people. It's not - it's garbage and should be scrubbed where found.
  • Dates - Most of your articles use some made-up dating system that is as clear as my toilet after a hot curry and against pretty every guideline and policy we have to do with writing about fiction.

Cameron Scott (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns are duly noted, and we are all well aware of the problems with the vast majority of the Gundam-related articles. The problem is a lack of manpower, coupled with the possibility of fanboys protecting "their" articles (I haven't seen any of this myself, but I do very little work with Gundam-related articles, so...). —Dinoguy1000 19:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd have a go at helping to clean them up but they make so little sense to me I'd struggle to know where to start. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
That (and the fact that I don't have much interest in Gundam anyways) is a big part of the reason I've never done anything with them either. You may be interested to know, though, that a large number of Gundam articles have been AfDed recently, and many of them have been merged or deleted as a result, so at least something is happening. —Dinoguy1000 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to fix things, but I am not good at writing out of universe style articles, and most of the manpower working on adding back in-universe stuff into articles are actually IP users who never register. This project lacks of manpower, and another problem is that the pseudo-science and fictional timelines are quite the main focus of the meta-series, this is basically the reason why they are popular, thus they must be explaint in articles(at least some) somehow. MythSearchertalk 07:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes but they must be treated as the fictional object of a narrative - none of the articles do this. It's a bit of a problem if you don't have the manpower to tackle the issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are talking about, but I suck at doing so, and most of us here that are willing to do so are not experts at doing so either. Another problem is that Gundam fans can be mainly separated into 2 groups, the first are the ones that understand rules but are too grown up to have much time to work on wiki, the other are those random kids out there who are simply attracted by latest anime and cannot understand wiki policies and such. For example, there is an article that was mergeto and deleted several times but a persistently recreated with different names. MythSearchertalk 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Most pages that need work are UC Gundam ones, and there are very few people who care about those. User:MalikCarr was one of them (and in fact he has made at least four quite good articles) but he hasn't been around in forever. Jtrainor (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Mobile Suit (2)

Can I get someone to review and weight in on what is going on at {{Infobox Mobile Suit}}? --Farix (Talk) 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we gave up. AMIB is an administrator and acts like he's above the rules when it comes to WP:TE. One of the multiple reasons I'm just watching Wikipedia and no longer contributing to it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated relevant discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gundam navboxes

I've wanted for some time to work on the various Gundam-related navboxes, but a lack of knowledge of the Gundam universe, coupled with the deplorable state of the majority of Gundam-related articles, has discouraged me from doing so. However, in light of the recent work TheFarix has undertaken to start cleaning up the Gundam mess, and all the recent deletion discussions TTN has started, I think I may be able to get started in the future. In order to do so, though, I'm going to need some help, preferably from someone familiar with the Gundam universe and the array of Gundam articles currently present. My current plan is to basically rewrite the entire Gundam navbox structure, with a single overarching navbox to connect all the series, and then individual navboxes covering each series as necessary, with further details to be discussed after I get some feedback (right now, for the main template, I am considering organization by release date or media type or something). Thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 18:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Help is always appreciated. I think the most wiki like style would be like or at least similar to what you said. A general nav box that shows all series, and separate boxes for each series themselves, instead of the current "timeline" based boxes, which renders the largest timeline, the Universal Century, a horrible mess, and almost nothing can fix it, since itself contains half of the animated series and most of the other methods of publication like manga and novels. For the release dates, I would suggest taking a look at mahq list, since it got all the animated series in the list. G Gundam, Gundam Wing(+Endless Waltz sequel), Gundam X, ∀ Gundam and Gundam 00 are all separate series, Gundam SEED, SEED-Destiny, Stargazer are of another series, Gundam Evolve are short 3DCG films that should go into the others and the rest are all Universal Century related items. Going into real world chronological order sounds fine to me, if you want to know the in-universe order, we can talk about it later. MythSearchertalk 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think in-universe order would be better saved for an article on the Gundam timeline (which I would ordinarily never even consider suggesting, but in this case, I'd say there's a strong possibility such an article could be properly sourced to the point of demonstrating notability separate from the rest of the Gundam universe). As for the individual series, I'm going to need help identifying what articles should be listed in the navbox for each series - or at least, what articles are tied to each series, so I can decide whether it needs a navbox in the first place. At the same time, the proper development of a categorization system should be looked at (BTW, category work is something I've recently broadened my attentions to). For this time, though, I'd appreciate if someone could either provide a list of Gundam series articles (only the series articles, I'll worry about the related articles later), or point to such a list (or, alternatively, provide one on one of my subpages that I just decided to dedicate to this). —Dinoguy1000 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a series list at Gundam#Gundam franchise. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Aah, well that certainly helps... Thanks for the (should have been obvious) pointer! =) *remembers the Gundam manga/novel list and shudders* —Dinoguy1000 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Absorb into WP:ANIME as work group?

I have initiated a discussion about absorbing this WikiProject into WP:ANIME as work group. --Farix (Talk) 15:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a change

I propose that unless a particular variant is noteable (eg Char's Custom Whatever), mobile suit pages don't need every single variant listed. This is one of the things people constantly crap on us for, and they do kinda have a point on this one single specific issue. Jtrainor (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Trimming down the suits is ok. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep the name only in the list, do not have long in-universe description after it, unless it got a lot of variants like the GM or Zaku, 3~4 variant names would not be that annoying in normal articles. MythSearchertalk 07:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
To expand on this, if something HAS a lot of variants, yeah, mention it, but no need to do more than that. Jtrainor (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To start with, I zapped the variations thing from Gundam (mobile suit) for now. The removed content is in a sandbox at User:Jtrainor/RX-78 if anyone has anything useful that can be done with it (I know Full Armor Gundam has appeared in SRW, for example). Jtrainor (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, at least keep the ones that are used by the main characters and have major screen time in an anime. I kept NT-1 in it since it is the one in 0080. For 4th and 5th Gundam that are the main protagonist in a game, I left it out since games are harder to come by after a certain period and is normally less popular and notable. MythSearchertalk 08:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD action that never happened

looking at your status list - AFDs in 2006 determined that MBF-P01 Gundam Astray Gold Frame,MBF-P02 Gundam Astray Red Frame, MBF-P03 Gundam Astray Blue Frame, MBF-M1 Astray were to be merged together in a single article - this never happened. I'd perfer not to do AFDs for them again (which is likely only to result in a merge vote again) and just get on with it - any objections? --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, if they were sent back to AFD, they would probably be deleted since the result of the original AFD(s) was never carried out. Go ahead and do it, and be aware that there were several other 2006 AFDs that never got acted on (but I'm not sure which ones). —Dinoguy1000 03:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If the original close was to be merged, then they should be merged. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review

I propose that a deletion review be opened over the recent deletion of List of Universal Century technology. No proof was provided that the sources were not third party (the admin obviously did not even bother to examine them), so I think we have a case. Jtrainor (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: the closing admin speedily deleted it under G6, which is clearly correct. Jtrainor (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Kimitoshi Yamane help

I've just made an article about Kimitoshi Yamane, which was subsequently speedy-tagged for deletion just a few hours later by user Collectorian, just moments after I added details regarding his involvement in Escaflowne. Yamane is currently designing IGLOO and has worked on numerous other Gundam works, so I find it extremely surprising his notability is being questioned. Since I'm on a break right now and will probably be away from the computer, can someone help provide references from this article? Your help will be greatly appreciated. `···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 23:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thankfully a neutral admin finally saw through this, and declined the speedy claim. We finally have some time to save his article, but Collectorian has since moved it to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimitoshi Yamane. If someone could help and further provide references on this article - I believe Yamane has written numerous books on mecha - and there are hundreds of resources detailing his work on Gundam (and especially Gundam G), please help. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

siren time

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

Yeesh, first people complain about lots of trivial articles so we merge them, now they try to get rid of them entirely. Somehow I'm not surprised this is happening. Jtrainor (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Improving the Astray articles

In theory, the three Astrays are quite important in the side story stuff for SEED, yet their articles are pretty bad. What do you guys suggest be done with them? Jtrainor (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed 00 Mobile Suit Merger

I'm suggesting that the pages for the Exia, Dynames, and 00 Gundams' be merged into this article. They don't hold enough notability to merit their own articles, but do have some information that this list currently lacks. Barring legitimate opposition, I plan to merge said articles in about a week.Tempest115 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The article on 00 should probably not be merged. It is, after all, the main character's suit, and generally those get their own articles. Jtrainor (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Because they generally are more noteable and recieve more coverage. Jtrainor (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The latter is the former. I would just caution against setting up de facto standards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This standard is both de facto and de jure. You may wish to note that virtually all lead character mobile suits have their own articles. Jtrainor (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If it's written down somewhere, let's fix that. Don't mistake correlation and causation; the protagonist's mobile suit is usually meritorious of its own article because there's sufficient coverage of it, not because it's the protagonist's. There's a tendency to say, "Well, it's important to Gundam so it's important enough to mention here," which is problematic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I do believe that not every protagonists Gundam has their own page, the Wing series, for instance. In fact, I would argue that save the RX-78-2, most other protagonists suits don't merit their own articles, this standard is in no way "de jure" Tempest115 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why Mobile Unit?

After long time of curiousy, I decide to poke it in 00 MS list Talk page. And it turn out to be worse than I thought. To be clear, I never saw the term use anywhere else to classified Gundam mechanic and I see no solid reason to use it. If we want to inclde every vehicle, then lets be less geek and use simple mechanic. Or use proper term mobile weapon and purge all ship somewhere else. L-Zwei (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The short answer, basically, is newbies. I note the immature comments of some of the people on that page.

I've moved it to mobile weapons instead of mobile units for now, and also sanitized the article of this mobile units garbage. AMIB, since I know you're watching this page, I would appreciate it if you would whack the page with a moveprot. Jtrainor (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to his talk page, Virginian has flown the coop... I propose creating a "List of Gundam 00 vehicles and support units" article in the same style as that SEED one that's floating around. Ptolemios may or may not qualify for it's own article, depending on whether it's recieved coverage (White Base and Archangel both have their own).

This seems to be the general thoughts of the folks who want the stuff to stay in the article, as they keep adding Ptolemios and so forth, but not any of the more minor stuff (Virginia-class ship used by the Union, those things that the HRL uses, ALAWS' carriers in S2, etc). Jtrainor (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, if such a page can be written that can hold its own, go for it. Tempest115 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Really the translation of "kidou senshi gundam" is "mobile warrior gundam" but it looks kinda better "mobile weapons" than "mobile warrior" or "mobile unit" --Hitman54 (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My attemp at List of Gundam Universal Century mobile weapons

I just try to use table on this list User:L-Zwei/Universal Centiry Mobile Weapons. The table suppose to give only brief info, provide only basic character of MS/MA. Only mention plot when it outright effect mech character/name (like MS-14S Gelggog first appear as YMS-14 and has name change mid-series). More detail suppose to feature in each mech's article or more exclusive list. Currently only MSG section is complete, any comment?

I'm pretty much has Great Old One and Outer God lists as model. There are two master lists, which give short summary and provide link (if available) to entry's article or more exclusive list that provide more detail on that entry. If thing gone well, there will be two master lists, one for UC and other for other series. Reason is to avoid cramness and UC is "classic" setting that keep expanding. And add short summary table of CE and AD to second master list. L-Zwei (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Help

I have spent the last 15 minutes looking in vain for information of the MS carrier/spaceship in the Gundam 00 universe. Do we not have an article on it? It seems a waste to list all the mobile suits and overlook the vehicles that get said suits into and out of battle. Does anyone know where I might find the info (preferably here, but as Wikipedia is hideously anti-fiction elsewhere on the net would work too)?TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the type of thing that would be listed on List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons. Whether it's ever actually been there depends on whether any fans have cared to list it, and whether it later got removed in the course of cleanup (neither of which I can answer, since I don't generally watch Gundam articles). 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 06:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
That was actually the first place I thought to look, but it ain't there. Guess we don't have an article on the ship. That sucks :( TomStar81 (Talk) 15:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really... an article would be excessive. A section on the page should suffice for now. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to add it. Tempest115 (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A Baoa Qu (Gundam)

A Baoa Qu (Gundam) has been prodded by someone. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirected to One Year War. Jtrainor (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Character list changes

An new user has boldly reworked List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters. I was probably too wordy in comments on the editor's talk page, but I thought the previous organization (by faction) would be easier to source, while the current organization would be much harder to source. Either way, please comment about the changes and which version you feel is better. Edward321 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gundam Seed Destiny

There is a proposal to merge the Gundam Seed and Gundam Seed Destiny articles. If you have an opinion, feel free to voice it in the discussion. [3] [4] Edward321 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposing source for notable Gundam weapons

Recently I have obtained a secondary source specifically mentioning the weapons used by mobile units.(Universal Century specific) I wonder if we could use it as a source to include the notable weapons of different suits. That is, reopening the discussion above, having only the notable weapons listed in the info box.(and a short description in the article) MythSearchertalk 14:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

AMIB's interactions with the people working on the Gundam articles was specifically called out by Arbcom in his recent case, so feel free to do what you wish. He certainly won't be causing any more trouble related to this issue. Jtrainor (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is more directed to others, since I am proposing only including the ones in the book(since they are sourced) and remove others from the infobox, since those are not the iconic weapons/protective gear. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Images that we can use

I need some help here. For the very long and tedious, evil fair use argument on the pictures released by officials, we had almost no luck in winning, I have found an alternative and free image source we could use. I have contacted the webmaster of this page, who is an enthusistic photographer in Gundam models and toys, granted the rights and permittion of his works(only the ones related to Gundam) to me. So, all of the pictures taken in the linked page is now free to use in wikipedia, with no copyright violation. I need help in generating a list of images we currently have, and swtich them with the ones in this site. Any volumteers? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 03:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it (and I could be wrong, I do very little with images), those images are still fair-use because they are reproductions of a copyrighted media (the Gundam models). In any case, though, fair-use images are fine so long as they aren't excessive (i.e. galleries of fair-use images on an article are a big no-no), are supported by discussion in the prose, and have proper fair-use rationales on their image description pages. Before you jump down my throat, though, I am not making an argument here about the validity or necessity of all this, I am merely pointing out what I know. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As my knowledge in copyright(with a specific course I took in University), photos taken by a photographer with artistic expression is consider a form of art, and the copyright is on the artist, not the original company as long as the photos are not used to promote another product or sold. Say, a photographer can take pictures of a movie star drinking soda and post on his own website, but it is copyright infringement if the pictures are being sold or used to promote the soda (like, picture being place on soda machines of that brand without the star's agreement) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Even so, it wouldn't hurt to ask someone who works with fair-use images on Wikipedia regularly, just so you can say "I asked X, and they told me Y" in the event a problem *does* arise for whatever reason. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
So, where should I ask in this situation? I am at a lost in what WP or notice board pages I should be using most of the time, there's simply too many. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42#Question about images of scale models on a related image. The policy page on non-free content seems to be the best location for such a question about copyright and derived works. --Farix (Talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

UC categorys

FYI, all the Universal Century categories have been proposed to be renamed as "Mobile Suit Gundam xxxxxxx" ... see WP:CFD ( you can start at Category:Universal Century and the link there) 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Gundam Categories

It seems to me that there are currently in excess of 70 subcategories for Category:Gundam (including duplications), most of which have only a few members. As such, I would suggest:

  • that the category be flattened to have only subcategories each series (At most we can include a single category for each of Characters, Novels, Locations...);
  • characters and other subarticles be included directly in those sub-categories; and
  • categories containing non-mainspace articles be included in a separate Gundam Workgroup category.

Your feedback please?

G.A.Stalk 06:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first two, but do not really understand the last one. From what I try to guess with me being really not in condition, you mean templates and such be placed into a workgroup cat? I would support that, just that if they are only templates, maybe we can name it as Gundam Templates. If I am wrong, please correct me. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. By the last one I mean that templates, images, etc. be placed in appropriate subcategories of Category:Gundam Workgroup as follow:
     Category:WikiProject Anime and manga articles by work group
     └─ Category:Gundam work group articles
        ├─ Category:Gundam templates
        │  └─ Templates
        ├─ Category:Gundam images
        ┊  └─ Images
It may also make sense to put Category:Gundam templates and Category:Gundam images directly in WikiProject Anime and manga work groups.
G.A.Stalk 10:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, this sounds fine, it seems much better than the current cat. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is the existing tree layout

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Gundam

Many of these categories can be consolidated if not outright eliminated. All image categories should be merged into Category:Gundam images. Category:Gundam anime and manga, Category:Gundam characters, Category:Gundam factions, Category:Gundam lists, Category:Gundam locations, Category:Gundam model, Category:Gundam novels, Category:Gundam terminology, Category:Gundam Wars, and Category:Gundam weapons should be eliminated and articles in these categories should either be listed in their series specific category or in Category:Gundam. --Farix (Talk) 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This plan of action sounds good to me; a lot of this stuff is nothing more than gross overcategorization. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammering out the new structure

I have put a few of the categories up for discussion, but would like to – in parallel – work out a more appropriate structure. This proposed tree is supposed to be a comprehensive plan for the new category structure, feel free to add onto it: 

     Category:Gundam
     │ By format
     ├─ Category:Gundam anime and manga
     ├─ Category:Gundam novels
     ├─ Category:Gundam video games
     ├─ Category:Gundam images
     │ By type           
     ├─ Category:Gundam lists 
     ├─ Category:Gundam characters (No subcategories)
     │ By metaseries  
     ├─ Category:After War
     │  │ By series  
     │  └─ (Series categories here)
     └─ Category:Universal Century
        │ By series  
        └─ (Series categories here)

This leaves me with a few questions:

  1. Is separate subcategories really needed for each series' characters? Especially since most of them would have a hard time proving notability?
  2. Is a separate subcategories needed for UC lists? I rather Catscan be used to seperate UC when needed as it is unlikely that the reader need to do so.
  3. Is category:Lists of Gundam characters needed? I rather the members be added to the parent categories, being Category:Gundam lists and the applicable series category, e.g. Category:SD Gundam.
  4. Category:Gundam weapons should be eliminated. But should the subcategories be kept or upmerged to the applicable series category?
  5. If the 5 weapons subcategories are kept, should they be members of the "metaseries", or the "individual" series?
  6. What about category:Gundam weapons's "grandchildren"?

G.A.Stalk 05:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. I don't think so. Have them in both the metaseries cat and the character cat sounds good enough. Most of the notable characters would be the few from UC and maybe Killer Tomato in CE.(sorry, can't resist that joke) Other series except W got really notable characters. W is a little old so I don't know of any sources right now, so I am not commenting on that.
  2. No comment, UC is by itself way to large a compilation, but I'd say only create when necessary and really serves a certain amount of articles.
  3. No. It should be in Gundam characters and lists. So I support what you proposed.
  4. Technically all of the MS, MA, MF, blah blah blah are considered characters in the Japanese terminology(they are licensed that way as well, to my knowledge, hence the SD Gundam series), so I propose using the character cat for them as well.
  5. They should not be kept. No real reason to if we can have both metaseries and character/mecha cats. The articles might need to be named correctly to reflect their series, but that could be left for later discussions.
  6. remove them. Redundant and over categorized.
  7. Further elaborations on these, except for UC, AC and CE, we should be using the series name as the cat name.(Or a shortened form like Gundam 00, Turn A Gundam, Gundam X and G Gundam) UC is the compilation name, and Gundam does not work well. AC and CE, well, at least they have at least 2 anime so I guess they serve as compilation(though not sourced like UC) so people might bite me if I suggest naming them as W Gundam and Gundam SEED :P —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam mass deletion in article

The history shows it went from 41,210 bytes to 6,608 bytes during one day of mass deletion by a single editor. I'm curious if any of the information removed is notable to the series. Can someone who is a fan and knows what is what, please go check it out? Are the other units being removed significant at all, or were they not important to any of the anime/manga/video game/toy series? Dream Focus 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Gundam articles are currently the subject of a massive cleanup, which involves amongst other, the removal of a lot of trivial information (This has been discussed in broad terms on WT:ANIME in the past; note that a lot of the information is also redundant to some of the other lists, (1, 2, 3, 4) amongst other). G.A.Stalk 14:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gundam Seed Destiny Manga issue

Hi,

Just bring the weird issue to think off. The Gundam Seed Destiny Manga adaptation has two series of 5 & 2 volumes respectively. see below for details.

However i stumbled upon the Del Rey localization of the Manga and there are only one series of 4 volumes

The summary of Del Rey the vol. 4 explicitly say it the final volume.

Can anyone tell me how Original volumes & English ones are related as it's obvious that Del Rey made some cut in the localization process. Rough math give a difference of 100 pages or so.

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Never read any of these, but are these the same? It seems like the cover is quite different from each other. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read the Del Rey version, but it's been awhile. I'll re-request it in a couple of weeks (poke me after awhile; I'm apt to forget) and check what it says on original publication as well as getting a chapter list. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
All right, since I have the volumes in front of me, here's some details: art by Masatsugu Iwase, original story by Hajime Yatate and Yoshiyuki Tomino, first published in Japan by Kodansha (a search on "機動戦士ガンダムＳＥＥＤ　ＤＥＳＴＩＮＹ" turns up these and some other volumes, and searching just "機動戦士ガンダムＳＥＥＤ" turns up even more). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
My Japanese knowledge could be of some help here. It seems like these are different series, the ones with THE EDGE tagged are not the same. So the 4 volume one are the manga for the original story, like the TV anime(or at least similar, for the record of almost all Gundam series have quite different plots details in the manga/novel/anime of the same series) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the promised chapter list should magically appear at User:Dinoguy1000/Chapter lists#Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny in a bit (forgot to say that before). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
KrebMarkt starts to have a nervous breakdown...
Two Japanese publishers... Waa wA wwAa... Can't cope with it...
Thanks both of you for you replies. The Gundam Seed Destiny never ending list of adaptations mystery will be solved no matter how many editors will end up into a psychiatric asylum.
@Dinoguy1000 Side comment: That one list is a tiny part of the wuxia fiction madness ;) --KrebMarkt 21:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed that Gundam in general tends to be a tangled mess of interrelated releases. =P (and @ your side comment: yeah, the series (what I've read of it) isn't bad; the plot is fairly engaging, but there's all sorts of technical errors in the writing that detracts from the enjoyment - I have no idea what of them are from the original Chnese version and what's ComicsOne's fault, though) 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Gundam series usually have tons of manga and sometimes they have overlaping publications for the same anime. BTW, Wing Sing Ma is a Hong Kong artist, it is originally in Chinese (published in HK by comics world). —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the efforts of several individuals, the various Gundam-related navboxes have largely been cleaned up and set in order, as well as a handful of new ones created for specific subfranchises ({{Mobile Suit Gundam}}, {{Mobile Suit Gundam 00}}, {{Mobile Suit Gundam SEED}}, and {{Mobile Suit Gundam Wing}}). Now that this is done, does anyone here know any articles that are missing from any of these navboxes? Also, are there any other subfranchises which warrant their own navbox, or can any new navboxes be split off of the current ones (for instance, possibly splitting off {{Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny}} from {{Mobile Suit Gundam SEED}})? In addition, if someone happens to be familiar with Super Deformed Gundam, I'd appreciate a look over its template to make sure stuff is logically ordered. A bit more stuff and a workspace can be found at User:Dinoguy1000/Gundam, if anyone is interested. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, if Mobile Suit Gundam includes all UC series, SEED should include Destiny as well. (UC series is a much larger compilation) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Not that it's a big deal, but I actually generalized the 00 navbox from a character navbox after most of the characters had been merged to the list. As for splitting the MSG and SEED boxes, could MSG reasonably be split into two or more navboxes (or, rather, could some of the stuff be split into a separate navbox)? If we address this first, it might make clearer what we can do with the SEED box. One last note, what should become of {{Gundam}}? Personally, I think it should be refocused on the "linchpin" series in the metafranchise, linking out to articles on major adaptations as well as related lists... Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, {{Gundam}} should only contain links to the subfranchises (i.e. those with Navboxes; listed above), and articles without their own navboxes. I would rather not linking to the related lists, there are a lot of them. G.A.Stalk 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the MSG navbox should be named as Universal Century since that is the compilation name. If it is too long(Due to the fact that half of the Gundam franchise is UC) it might be a good idea to split it to anime + film and manga + novel + others. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 13:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
G.A.S: You mean something like this? Mythsearcher: I have little opinion on the name of the MSG navbox (although I do lean in favor of the actual series name), but is your proposed split point an "obvious" one? That is, does it divide between two different continuities within the UC timeline or something? Also, how large would the resulting navboxes be? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it should be quite obvious since it is a cut between anime and manga so it would simply be moving the live-action movie above the manga section of the current nav box and spliting underneath it. Or an alternate split would be simplier, which is spliting under the section under the current nav box at the live-action movie, so one nav box would include anime, manga and movie, and the other would contain games and other stuff. BTW, should we delete the Chimera Corps article and remove it from the nav box? I cannot think of it as anything notable at all. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Generally, we don't split different media types into different navboxes just because they are different media types - all articles relating to Dragon Ball, for instance, are linked from the same Template:Dragon Ball (with the exception of the 73 soundtrack articles, many of which need to be merged back to the list), in spite of the fact that the template could be shrunk quite a bit by splitting off the films and video games into their own navboxes. Now, if the Dragon Ball franchise were composed of two discrete universes or timelines, where media belonging to one were largely separate from the other (as opposed to being sequels or retellings), then a second navbox might be justified. On the other hand, it is possible that a GX-specific navbox could be split out from Template:Yu-Gi-Oh! at some point (in spite of the fact that G.A.S and I just got done merging ~4 different boxes into one and getting the old ones deleted), because GX is sufficiently unique from the original series.
To put it another way (I know, now I'm just talking too much... ^_^;; ), each navbox should have one or two series as its focal point - Template:Naruto focuses on Naruto, Template:Bubblegum Crisis focuses on Bubblegum Crisis, etc. - and provide links to related subjects. So the question actually is (and I should have asked it like this in the first place) can any of the UC sub-series be comfortably split into their own navbox? Can you provide a compelling reason to create, for instance, a Template:Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I am only stating a split if the nav box became too long. I think splitting them by series would not be appropriate since they will become too short and too many, thus I suggested splitting the nav box in some other way. If it is not the usual way of doing things, I guess it could remain as it is. It is not too long right now, yet. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
All right, that's fine (sorry for all the trouble ;P ). G.A.S, any comment on my above proposed rewrite of {{Gundam}}? Here is the proposal if you need it again. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that is what I had in mind. It should then probably be used on all of the Gundam pages? G.A.Stalk 23:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it seems like I caused the trouble since I have suggested something out of the context. sorry for that. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
G.A.S: All right, I'll deploy the new version in a second. Mythsearcher: No worries, at least we each finally figured out what the other was talking about. ;P 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I kind of preferred the old navbox for Gundam because, while less cleaned up, it was a good place to find which Gundam series belongs to which timeline. While this is handled in a paragraph of the main Gundam article now, the information isn't as easily gleaned as it was from the layout of the previous navbox. -- jrronimo@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.140.141 (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Saving a bit of useful content

Since the UC references template was deleted, here are the links from it. Should be handy for properly sourcing articles.

Article for Deletion - Universal Century technology

Hello there. This is to inform you all that I've nominated an article belonging to this project, Universal Century technology, for deletion. The discussion can be found here.

Manga and novels list

I've tagged List of Gundam manga and novels for a bunch of issues, but frankly, I have no idea just how it should be beyond being formatted with tables instead of lists. However, I can say that it needs references for *everything* as well as the publisher for each series, and the in-universe ordering really has to go. Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMS-119 Geara Doga

I closed this AfD as merge to an unspecified target. I'd like to invite the project members to figure out where best to send this content. If no one gets to this in a week or so, I'll probably just merge it myself. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging all characters into show lists

When and where was this decision made, exactly? –ConkblockedWiki 19:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

60mm Vulcan?

There is an unknown number of pages, "RX-77 Guncannon" being one of them, that state the the mecha has "60mm Vulcan cannon" as defense. This is linked to the page on the REAL M61 Vulcan cannon, which is a 20mm weapon...about .60cal (.60 inches), in other words. Is this a mistake? I know that this is fiction, but if it is indeed supposed to be a 60mm weapon, then perhaps the link to the real Vulcan is inappropriate? At this time there is no Gatling-type 60mm cannon in service, and if it's actually supposed to be 20mm guns that the mecha are armed with, then it should be changed, time permitting.

.45Colt 15:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

This is indeed a mistake, as they are not the same weapon. The 60mm being referenced is a "generic" 60mm machine gun of some sort with no connection to the real life weapon other than name. Jtrainor (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Era

FYI, Cosmic Era has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Post–One Year War for deletion

The article Post–One Year War is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post–One Year War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Gundam Wiki

I've noticed that some of the Gundam articles, while rather informative, directly come from Gundam Wikia. I've been working on some articles myself to remove that in-universe "smell" so common in Gundam Wiki articles, but is there anyone who can help prune the in-universe treatment much more? I've seen several character articles that have been redirected, which is a good thing. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(Off topic) I suspect that it is actually the other way around, i.e. [5] vs [6]... (unless you know of examples that went the other way). G.A.Stalk 04:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I remember putting in the description of Gundam Unicorn's third episode, but that was later put in Gundam Wiki and given a big plot bloat. --Eaglestorm (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless otherwise directed, I'll start rewriting or redirecting the stuff I can see from my end. I think that the reason many of the articles have various tags such as in-universe and OR because they are simply lifted from the Gundam Wiki (and many of the articles in there are just atrocious). --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Gundam Seed creation information

I have been working in some Gundam Seed characters articles like Kira Yamato and the other protagonists to follow the manual of style and pass notability. However, I was unable to find any creation information about. On the other hand, some mobile suits from the same series have unsourced interviews with the staff in charge and I wonder if somebody knows a reliable source that has information about this characters' creation. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is the Otona no Gundam Gundam Business & History + Character + Mechanic published by Nikkei BP. Yet this is more like an analysis of the characters and mechas instead of character creation idea from the creators. The special interviews on the official website were already taken down quite long time ago(with the special button removed altogether) and I don't have the SEED specific character books, don't know if I can provide any help or not. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 10:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I see. Do you know what was the url of the official webiste? Maybe we the autoarchive has them. Anyway, thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
[7]. It would be best to see the latest special section. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Nice. Found some here. These are quite a lot, and as I can see there is some regarding comparisons between Shinn and Kira although it would be better to ask a person experienced in Japanese.Tintor2 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Some useful info that may require translation

I found some Japanese scans from the book Gundam SEED Official file that contains comments from the staff in charge. This one and this one have comments from four Japanese voice actors. There are a comments by the director and others, but it's all in Japanese so it may require a person who knows Japanese to check it.Tintor2 (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Gundam/Archive_3&oldid=1202763780"