Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Gundam

Cosmic Era Battleships or Warships and Spacecraft...

• Err.... Just notice the category is named Cosmic Era Battleships. Should we rename the category same as article Warships and spacecraft of the Cosmic Era? Previously the article was named Battleships of Cosmic Era, too. It is renamed because it includes civillian vessel such as Silverwind and the ships is not battleship but warship. Draconins 09:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds fine to me. --The Trashman 04:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Suppose in-jokes

Since this seems to be the hub for CE entries, I suppose it's best to put this here. Does every mention of the Japanese voice actors having worked togethor prior qualify as an 'in-joke'? I wouldn't doubt some of the cases are correct but it's not exactly suprising big name voice actors would work togethor so I think these trivia notes should be evaluated and removed if they seem to be reaching--HellCat86 16:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, however I lack of competence to check this trivia notes. My sources usually don't state anything to do with the 'in-joke', however I think it is usual for famous seiyuu commonly working together. In reality, they also develop friendships among them. Draconins 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Origin

Ethnic origin is listed for many Cosmic Era characters on individual pages. Aisha - possibly Japanese or Caucasian, Flay Allster - American, Shinn Asuka - Japanese, Cagalli Yula Athha - Japanese, Uzumi Nara Athha - Japanese, Clotho Buer - South African, Jean Carry - American, Lacus Clyne - Scandinavian, Siegel Clyne - Scandinavian, Rau Le Creuset - French-Canadian, Martin DaCosta - Israeli, Dearka Elsman - Egyptian, Al Da Flaga - Canadian, Mu La Flaga - French-Canadian, George Glenn - American, Edward Harrelson - American, Tolle Koenig - German, Stellar Loussier - possibly French, Auel Neider - possibly German, Canard Pars - Canadian, Sato - Japanese, Yuna Roma Seiran - Canadian, Andrew Waltfeld - Israeli, Heine Westenfluss - German, Kira Yamato - Japanese, Athrun Zala - German or Central European, Patrick Zala - German or Central European.

The only ones of these that seem to be confirmed on the official Gundam Seed web page are the Clynes. Everything else appears to be fan guesses, some more credible than others.

They also aren't consistant.

Cagalli and Kira are twins and listed as Japanese, yet their possible brother Canard Pars is listed as Canadian ethnic origin.

Mu La Flaga's ethnic origin doesn't exactly match his own father's. Then again, the ethnic origins for neither of Al La Flaga's clones exactly match his, either.

If all these are is guesses, I think they should be deleted.

Edward321 02:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the same link that cites the origin of Kira's name, Fukuda also comments that the character of Kira was designed to be "very Japanese", apparently right down to the name. Therefore, Cagalli would be of Japanese descent as well. While I can't say for sure whether both Ulen and Via Hibiki were both Japanese, the name "Hibiki" is a Japanese surname and since in most marriage cirlces the husband's surname becomes the wife's (with rare exceptions in Japanese culture, notably Gendo "Ikari" of Evangelion fame), it stands to reason that Ulen is Japanese as well. As for Attha, it would stand to reason that Cagalli would only believe him to be her biological dad if he was of a similar ethnic background.

Which could mean Uzumi is a large variety of things besides Japanese. For that matter, Ulen and Via are not Japanese names, which makes it unlikely Kira and Cagalli are of fully Japanese ancestry. Edward321 00:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Full, probably not, but they are still likely of Japanese ancestry. 68.119.199.84 03:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So you've never heard of full Japanese with non-japanese names? You mean all of those Americans of Japanese descent have japanese first names? 76.17.110.240 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In the modern world, names can have very little to do with ethnic origin. A man named 'Earl Woods' could be of European ancestry, or African, or Asian, or Native American, or a mixture of the same. My point was - and still is - that guesses, however educated, do not belong in an encyclopedia. 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

While some of these are theories, they are very educated ones apparently based on the name, mannerisms, and apperance of the character. George Glenn's background, name, and ideals are all very typical of an American-style astronaut in the vein of John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, and Jim Lovell.

It doesn't matter if the theory is educated, speculation does not belong in an encyclopedia. And most of these theories are not educated. Edward321 00:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Shinn Askua, you seriously cannot get anymore Japanese than with his name and appearance.

What's distinctively Japanese about his appearance? Edward321 00:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I exaggerated, but the dark hair and slightly short frame suggest an asian. Again, one cannot argue the given and surnam of not only Shinn but his sister as well.68.119.199.84 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Waltfeld very much fills a popular Israeli person archetype known as "Sabra". People of these type are apparently comparable to cacti- rough-looking on the outside but holding something sweet within. Waltfeld has very dark skin, cactus-shaped hair, an overly tough-guy apperance, and a pleasant, casual demeanor. 68.119.199.84 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_%28person%29 Nothing there about skin color or hair style, nor does Andrew have cactus-shaped hair. For that matter, his skin is no darker than Dearka, Yolant, Martin, or Ledonir. In the end, this is unsourced speculation and does not belong on Wikipedia. Edward321 00:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am about 90% sure that there are no official setting on these. Not even in the Official character file mention anything about their ethnic origin, especially the genetic dividen part of that file listed coodinator or natural only. MythSearcher^talk 02:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am agree with MythSearcher. I also never found these on the official sources and reliable secondary sources. Draconins 03:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I removed Ethnic Origin from the character template. In actual articles these are typically either left blank or filled in with unsourced guesses, since there are no official sources on these. There's enough cruft without this. Edward321 06:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-reverted, since I appear to have done it wrong. Could somene more competant (i.e. almost anyone) please fix the template to avoid this source of fancruft? Edward321 06:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a prime example of why I feel Wikipedia no longer functions. Everything has to have a 100% fool-proof citation or the thought police remove it. Even when it is provided, biased people will still delete (all the damn Mobile Suit entries anyone?) 24.158.69.181 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ehh...could someone here take a look?

I have quite debate at Talk:GAT-X105 Strike Gundam and it seem go nowhere. Is there anybody care to take care of it? Even if someone can find a reliable source that clearly state Kira change Rouge OS and prove I'm wrong is better than this pointless speculation. L-Zwei 06:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Article for Delete occur...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TS-MA2 Moebius Only I vote to keep at moment. And even if it's just about Moebius, not the falshier Gundam, I think you all should consider dissolve this WikiProject. L-Zwei 15:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame. Whilst I can partly see their point, entries for fictional things are constantly persecuted here. I don't see why they're calling it fancruft, it's hardly that bad. From what I've read, Wikipedia's initial goal seemed more loose and fun then certain editors want us to believe. It's not like the Gundam entries are leaving no space for articles on famous scientists, deadly diseases, etc. To me, it stinks of people who want write a personalised encyclopedia which would never get published so instead they bully people here.--HellCat86 03:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Another AfD that should be noted here

[[1]] Heated debate on that page which strives to delete all the Cosmic Era mobile suit articles. Kyaa the Catlord 12:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Name change

So.. yeah, I changed the name of the project to WikiProject Gundam, as to include all things Gundam and not just Seed. Might help the project out in becoming active. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging of CE mobile weapons

Due to the recent discussion about deleting all CE mobile weapons I think that it would be better to merge all the articles. The User Kira Matthews came up with this idea:

Earth Alliance

• G-Weapons (Duel, Buster, Strike [including Strike Rouge], Blitz, Aegis)
  • "Dagger" units (Strike Dagger, 105 Dagger, Dagger L, Windam, and the more extraneous information in the Duel, Buster, and Blitz articles)
  • Stargazer G-Weapon derivatives (Blu Duel, Verde Buster, and Strike Noir)
• Mobile Armors (Moebius/Moebius Zero, Exass, Euclid, Pergrande, Zamza-Zah, Gells-Ghe)
• Second-generation EA Gundams (Calamity, Forbidden, Raider, and derivatives)
• Miscellaneous (Destroy and Hyperion)

ZAFT

• GINN, CGUE, and GuAIZ series
  • GINN derivatives (BABI, DINN, ZuOOT, BuCUE, LaGOWE, GOOhN, ZnO, ASH)
  • CGUE and GuAIZ derivatives (DEEP Arms and Experimental Firearms Type)
• First-generation ZAFT Gundams (Dreadnought, Justice, Freedom, Regenerate, Testament, and Providence)
• Second-generation ZAFT Gundams (Chaos, Abyss, Gaia, Saviour, Impulse, Destiny, Legend, and related units)
• ZAKU, GOUF, and DOM series [even though the DOM Trooper technically belongs to Terminal]

ORB Union/Clyne Faction/Terminal

• Astray series suits (Red Frame, Blue Frame, Gold Frame, production-model Astray, and related units)
• Second-generation ORB Union mobile suits (Murasame and Akatsuki)
• Terminal-produced Gundams (Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice)

Other

• Anything and everything that doesn't fit into the aforementioned categories (Astray Out Frame, Stargazer, et cetera [can't be bothered to go into specifics])

Perhaps we should merge until its too late and we loose all of this articles. Anyone agree with me? Diabound00 09:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

yea, merge it for the time being... then, we expand the articles, RE-WRITE THEM COMPLETELY. then try to split it again. also is their anyway where we can sort of close that articles to the public, and only allow members of WP:CE edit it. maybe copy it to an undisclosed location and work on it in quiet their? what do you thing? - Plau 09:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some may be joined, but be warned that explosion can occur (especially images which are possible making some page inaccessible to some user due timout caused by lots of image). I prefer that some article kept to be independent. Many article should be independent. My idea :

Keep pages:

• Duel, Buster, Strike, Blitz, Aegis : They are quite different MS and each has variants
• Strike Dagger, 105 Dagger, Dagger L : They are different MS
• Windam: It is quite different MS with dagger series
• Moebius/Moebius Zero, Exass : I don't have any source why Exass descended from Moebius
• Euclid, Pergrande, Zamza-Zah, Gells-Ghe: They are distinct MA, though its is possible to group them into MA's section, I still insist that Moebius/Moebius Zero must be kept on different page because it is important MA
• Calamity, Forbidden, Raider: They are quite different MS and each has variants
• GINN, CGUE, and GuAIZ: They are quite different MS and each has variants
• BABI, DINN, ZuOOT, BuCUE, LaGOWE, GOOhN, ZnO, ASH : I never found that they are derived from GINN
• Dreadnought, Justice, Freedom, Regenerate, Testament, and Providence: They are quite different.
• Chaos, Abyss, Gaia, Saviour, Impulse, Destiny, Legend: They are quite different.
• ZAKU, GOUF: They are quite different
• DOM: I don't see that ZAKU is quite similar as DOM. It is like why keeping both F35 Lightning II and X32.
• Astray
• Murasame
• Akastuki
• Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice: They are quite distinct to their predecessors. It is like why we keeping both F-15 and F-15E Strike Eagle, not to mention F-18 and F-18E/F Super Hornet.
• StarGazer

Join:

• Strike rouge, Strike Noir into Strike
• Blu Duel into Duel
• Verde Buster into Buster
• BuCUE, LaGOWE into BuCUE : Only if someone found that LaGOWE are derived from LaGowe
• CGUE derivatives or prototype into CGUE
• GuAIZ derivatives or prototype into GuAIZ
• All derivatives/prototype of Chaos, Abyss, Impulse, Saviour, ZAKU, GOUF into their respective pages
• All derivatives of Astray into Astray (including astray out frame and Raysta )

It is only suggestion though. I suggest model development tree rather than faction tree since many MA/MS quickly stolen by other faction. It would be keep much of current structure. CMIIW Draconins 12:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I just wish we shouldn't mind much on long lenght article, at least not early of improving movement.

First the three main articles shall be EA's mech, ZAFT's mech and Misc mech, which also include Orb's mech (since it most likely that Astray series would got their seperate article, leaving only Akatsuki, Mistral and Murasame).

For EA.

• • I think that all GAT-X may deserve one seperate article, all of them (including Blu Duel and Verde Buster)except Strike shall be there. Strike's seperate article (for being hero mech) shall include Rouge and Noir as well.
  • Dagger series may deserve one seperate article, but we need new introduction paragraph.
  • This leave Hyperion, Windam, Destroy and all MA in main EA's mech page. The MAs may worth one seperate article, but that would leave main article with too few entries. We may consider to include Dagger here and have seperate article for MA instead.

for ZAFT

• • GINN and ZAKU may worth seperate article for their large number of variant.
  • Definity, Justice and Freedom deserve their own article, but I think merge with SF and IJ shall be done (it happen in Japaneese article).
  • GuAIZ series may worth one seperate article, if we include Dreadnaught, Providence (they're very close to GuAIZ anyway) and Legend.
  • Testament shall be merge with Astray Outframe in one seperate article (Outframe is "hero mech" anyway).
  • Second Stage Gundam shall be in single article, except Impulse. Impulse's article may include Destiny as well.
  • As result, main article should have CGUE series, DINN series, BaCUE series (including LAGOWE), ZuOOT series, amphibious MS series, Regenerate and BABI.

For Misc (including Orb, DSSD, Martian and other minor faction)

• • Astray series (include Raysta) would get into single article and leave the rest (Akatsuki, Murasame, Stargazer and Guardshell) in main article.

I known that that would leave use with very small number of article, but it should be make them less-likely to be Deletionist's target until we can improve several aspect of article.

Since it clear to get very long articles after the reform, I think we may consider redesign template for MS spec. MAHQ's template are nice, but a little too long. All of Unknown aspect shall be remove from specify mech's spec (this is, if no heigh listing, don't put it). Powersource shall be replace by Generator Output, in case that it was list (like Freedom). Minor feature like sensor shall be remove. And if possible, use infobox to display spec instead of make it into section shall be help. L-Zwei 17:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sensor? I don't think we should delete them. Rather we put that into general term like: Electronic, Auxiliary Equipment. In aviation term, such sensor called Avionics. Generator output? Why not power plant? It is common term for formal specification. Anyway, I still prefer generation (series) tree. Lengthy article will lead another problem... However, I like MAHQ template... and Burke's. Err...Dreadnought and Providence close to GuAIZ? Err, I never seen such statement or source, even in my mind, any explanation? Providence is quite close to Legend, however not to GuAIZ... (^^) Any other comment.... Well... well.... we may need some structure planning page....Draconins 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In Dreadnaught, it's quite simple. In basic configuaration, all it has are vulcan (somewhat forgetable :p ), beam rifle, beam reamer and composite shield. Now the beam reamer is wireless version of GuAIZ's external arrestor and composite shield is similar to GuAIZ's shield, just swap beam claws to beam saber. Now look at Providence by remove DRAGOON pod all left are vulcan (again, somewhat forgetable :p ), beam rifle and composite shield, which is similar to Dreadnaught except it alsocan use as beam guns. L-Zwei 05:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well AfD settled, and it seems that much work to do... I am still working on vessels, so I won't be much help until much later... However, I will help as much as I can. Well, now, how we group them?Draconins 15:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is just my opinion, but I think we should re-merge Cosmic Era Mobile Units, as well as redirect After Colony Mobile Units, After War Mobile Units and Universal Century Mobile Units, back to List of Mobile Weapons. I just think that the reformed CE articles would be apply to other articles as well. These timeline-specify articles list MS/MA by faction and we most likely have seperate articles by faction per above. The List of Mobile Weapons need some work, I think we should remove duplicate entry (those MSV's MS shall not list again in Zeta, for example). L-Zwei 05:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be better to merge all the G-weapons into one article since they are all, technically, variations of the same prototype? Especially in light that the Duel and Buster pages were deleted. Kyaa the Catlord 10:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well see this japanese official site for Gundam Seed [2]. I rather like this one especially for handling mobile suits operated or manufactured by several faction or quickly taken over. This is primary concern that I recommend series evolution. Another advantages, it would not taken too much kilobytes.... For you know, currently Minor Warships and Spacecrafts of Cosmic Era (Gundam) has 39 Kb, while it is still not finished. Draconins 11:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never understood the kb warnings really. :P I think that who "owns" them isn't important. That should be explained in text rather than by the group they're merged into, at least for the mobile suits. The most solid tie they have is manufacturer, ownership is based weakly on possession. :) Kyaa the Catlord 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than restoring all the pages included in this deletion, we should focus on the ones that are necessary. In my opinion, these are:

GAT-103X Buster

ZGMF-1001 ZAKU Phantom

ZGMF-2000 GOUF Ignited

ZGMF-X88S Gaia

GAT-X131 Calamity, GAT-X133 Sword Calamity and GAT-X370 Raider merged

GAT-X207 Blitz

GAT-X252 Forbidden and GAT-X255 Forbidden Blue merged

GAT-X303 Aegis

GFAS-X1 Destroy

All of the Dagger units should either be merged into a "production units of the Cosmic Era" article.

All of the Mobile Armors should be merged into a mobile armor of the Cosmic Era article, and split afterwards if the size gets too large.

ZGMF-X42S Destiny (Isn't this the primary MS for GSD?)

ZGMF-X666S Legend (Is this the "sister" unit to Destiny? If so, they should merge.)

All of the prototypes should be merged, with the spectacular ones (especially the ones pilotted by Shinn, Athrun or other lead characters) split off sometime in the future. Thoughts? Kyaa the Catlord 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you put your planned page name? From your comment seems you proposed:

• • Mobile Suit of Cosmic Era (Gundam)
    • Prototypes Mobile Suits of Gundam SEED (Gundam)
      • G Projects Mobile Suits of Gundam SEED (Gundam)
    • Prototype Mobile Suits of Gundam SEED Destiny (Gundam)
    • Mass Production Mobile Suits of Gundam SEED Destiny (Gundam)
  • Mobile Armor of Cosmic Era (Gundam)

Is that correct? Well, I still prefer [3]. , how about the others? 203.128.65.147 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging of Warship and Spacecraft

Current Progress:
Merged:

• Minor Warships and Spacecrafts of Cosmic Era (Gundam)
  • Arkansas
  • Des Moines
  • Fraser
  • Kuraokami
  • Petrie
  • Aegis class cruiser
  • Compton class land battleship
  • Hannibal-class land battleship
  • Gondwana
  • Tarawa class carrier / Spengler
  • Lesseps class land battleship
  • Vosgulov class submarine (Out-universe Rewritten)
  • Takemikazuchi (Out-universe additional references, and some rewrite) Update!

• Minor Spacecrafts of Cosmic Era (Gundam)
  • Agamemnon
  • Drake
  • Nelson
  • Girty Lue
  • Laurasia (Out-universe Rewritten)
  • Nazca (Out-universe Rewritten)
  • Izumo

To Do:

• Home/Rehome
• Acidalium

Help needed:

• Check the available link
• Check the grammar (there should be errors while I had tried to minimize it)
• Redirect if needed

I decide to start merging some vessels because, no major changes happened before and since I edited some vessels of cosmic era. See Minor Warships and Spacecrafts of Cosmic Era (Gundam). Though, I am against merging Lesseps, Takemikazuchi, Vosgulov and Tarawa into them since IMHO, it is important enough. For others, just wait... I got my hand full... currently. For all keepers, please pray that my boss does not scold me for this... (just joking... -_- ). Any suggestions are welcome. I really need your comment on Takemikazuchi and Tarawa matter. I also propose Minor Vehicle of Cosmic Era (Gundam) to be realized, IMHO, need to be separated between space, air, land unit. Draconins 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I will add other minor vessels (which are not AfD-ed) soon. Draconins 11:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Tsiolkovsky and Silverwind added. Well I must ask you all: I believe that Home and ReHome should not belong here, even, if merged, merged them in separate Home/ReHome article. Both vessels are quite important in Astray Manga. Acidalium, is also quite important in later part of Stargazer, so we may need separate article for this, too. Draconins 12:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Izumo and Nazca also quite important, why not let it have separate article? Especially Izumo...Draconins 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am kinda against any mecha or warship without a Model to have its own page. The reasoning behind this is simple, models are the best verifiable source and outside impact to anyone who do not know or have interest in the series at all, and yes, I am refering to deletionists. Archangel and Minerva both are released as EX model, which is an even better source since that series is not dedicated to Gundam. If the mecha or warship did not appear in anything else like Super Robot Wars, I'd say do not let it have its own page. Additional lists are desirable, since Astray is definitely considered to be another series and should recieve another page for its warship and mecha alike. That is one of the main reason I have suggested the second merge option in that discussion, it is less likely that deletionist will find any policy against a list for a series. MythSearcher^talk 16:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, because I find no other comment, seems like those four will be merged... Has to wait for a while though. Any other comment (regarding everything)? I also have checked Tarawa article, it is badly damaged and I must quite rewording and recreate much of its part. Draconins 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tarawa revised and merged. Still lots of works though, I expect to complete them in a week. Since, the article has become 44 Kb, I consider to split them on Water, Land, and Space based basis. How about it? Draconins 14:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Add references, and merged Laurasia which seems to be forgotten. Well, we now have ,wow, 51 kb. Now I that nobody object, I would decide to split them into Water, Land, and Space based basis. The page would be become list of those split articles. Please wait fow a while... Draconins 12:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, separate article had been born for spacecraft. Check Minor Spacecrafts of Cosmic Era (Gundam). Draconins 10:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just added Izumo. Now, 42 Kb already o_o. If I have rewritten the Izumo article, seems like I should separate this article. For some days, I can't update because my work. if you want to help, please try to improve the merged article or merge the unmerged article. I will try to update again, if I can "steal" some time. Draconins 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I managed to steal some time, so I add the Lesseps. Please be patient for more update from me. Draconins 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Managed to steal some time again, so I add and rewritten Vosgulov. As usual, be patient for more update from me. ^^ Draconins 12:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Today addition is, Takemikazuchi. This ship is short lived in GSD but I love her elegant design. And wow, now "major" fighting vessels on the main plot of TV series is complete. Three to do (Home, ReHome, and Acidalium). As usual, be patient for more update from me. Draconins 10:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Expanding project to what its name says

Now, if nobody opposes, I will expand this to cover UC related materials. Later if possible, maybe other series should be included too. MythSearcher^talk 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea. Originally this project was just about SEED related stuff, but there's definitely room to discuss all things Gundam here. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am about to request non-ce materials. I just notice the name have changed, yesterday... How stupid I am? A lot work to do... Draconins 10:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

About referencing

I have asked MAHQ about related content, and they have answered that they don't hold any copyrights. They only give credit on submission not to the content itself. They said, if you want to use the content, we actually do not need any permission from MAHQ, rather we should use them on Fair-use criterion. I also have asked if we may link pages inside MAHQ, and they answered yes.

Currently, I have requested formal permission for using Gundam-images from Sunrise. I hope they will give the formal permission. I am still wait for this. Draconins 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes I forgot to state that I have requested such permission on Bandai America. They answer that I should asked Sunrise instead. Hence, I wait for Sunrise statement. Draconins 12:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah also, that means MAHQ copyvio problem allegations was clarified and cleared. Draconins 12:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, long time has passed, Sunrise haven't give any reply. So just use fair-use policy for now. Draconins 13:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

About replace "spec" section with infobox

Well, I have no knowledge on creating infobox at all. So I pick one use in various Arm Slave article and modify it. Here is spec infobox for RX-78-1, for example.

Prototype Gundam
Designation	RX-78-1
Unit type	Prototype general purpose Mobile Suit
Manufacturer	Earth Federation
Head height	18m
Base weight	59t
Powerplant	Minovsky type ultracompact fusion reactor 1380 kW
Armor	Luna Titanium Alloy
Fixed Armaments	60mm Vulcan Gatling Guns x 2 beam saber x 2
Optional weapons	beam rifle

As I said, I have no knowledge on it at all. Can anybody improve it? The problem I found is, while it look great on imageless article, aritcle seem to mess up when put the infobox together with image. I think it would work better than creat seperate spec section in article. L-Zwei 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, I change all minor vessel with list style since in combined article it would be messed. If it is for specific article for particular ship, like archangel, I gladly recommend infoboxes. Draconins 14:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Strike Freedom Gundam
ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom
ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom
Fast Facts
Model Number	ZGMF-X20A
Ship Type	Prototype Assault Mobile Suit
Launched	C.E. 74
Manufacturer	Clyne Faction
Operator	Three Ships Alliance, Orb Union
Known Pilot	Kira Yamato
General Characteristics
Head Height	18.88 meters
Weight	80.09 metric tons
Powerplant	Ultracompact Hyper-Deuterion Nuclear Fission Reactor
Accommodation	Pilot only, in standard cockpit in torso
Armor:	Phase Shift Armor
Armaments
MMI-GAU27D 31 mm CIWS x2 , fire-linked, head-mounted MGX-2235 "Callidus" multi-phase beam cannon x1, torso-mounted MA-M02G "Super Lacerta" beam saber x2, stored on hips, hand-carried in use MMI-M15E "Xiphias 3" railgun x2 , folded underneath hips, spread out in use MA-M21KF combinable high-energy beam rifle x2, stored on hips, hand-carried in use MX2200 beam shield generator x2
Remote Armaments
EQFU-3X Super DRAGOON mobile weapon wings x8 (Each carry MA-80V beam assault cannon x1)
Special Equipments and Features
HiMAT (High Mobility Aerial Tactics) Neutron Jammer Canceller Hardpoint for docking with METEOR Phase Shift Armor Multi-lock Weapon System
Optional Equipments
METEOR (Mobile suit Embedded Tactical EnfORcer) mobile weapons platform

How about infobox I made on this right for ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam? It use wiki syntax rather usual html syntax. I think this is the best for covering various popular weapons on Gundam Universe. If there is no entry on some part, just remove them. Funnel, and Bits are on Remote Weapons. Core fighter is on Special Equipments and Features. G-Defensor, Full Armor, G-Falcon, and Dendrobium Orchis will be on Optional Special Equipments. It is large, and long.... that why I don't recommend this on compilation-type article. Well, I am sorry if CE-hater is here.... Draconins 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That infobox looks good to me. We should probably compare it to similar real world mecha, like the f-15 or whatever. :P Kyaa the Catlord 20:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps try to make the box a little broader. Also there is the problem with articles that cover several suits who all have their own specs. How do we solve this problem? The infobox would become incredible long. Diabound00 13:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Broader? Ok set from 200 to 300. Well, as I have said, I only recommend infobox for article dealing single mecha, or slight variants. I had changed all minor vessel with list style since in combined article it would be messed.Draconins 09:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • We truely need to clean-up spec part, quickly. As state in this thread at MAHQ forum, while they don't own specs, the format is original as well as partial of specs like powerplant type or weapon placement. Guess we need to use same template of Japaneese article to avoid problem now. L-Zwei 05:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, I just use infobox on RX-78-2 in RX-78 Gundam article, based on Draconins's infobox. Few of MAHQ format are edited-out, the infobox is pretty much "lite" specs which I adapt from Japaneese article. Please tell me if you've anything to complain. Now, I look more closely at Japaneese article and realised they don't give info box to every MS/variants. So I'm thinking of simply remove specs for "minor" (from non-fan POV) MS. The rest have main hero mech or main antagonist mech status to be notable. To be specify, I plan to give Alex (main mech of 0080), Pixie (main mech of Cross Dimension 0079), Mudrock (main antagonist of Zeonic Front) and may be G04 & G05 (main mech of From Place Beyond the Blaze manga). The rest will got spec remove (with links to MAHQ's entries in external links section for those who're curious). But I don't paln to do that until tonight. L-Zwei 06:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm, well I have seen the infobox, it seems too much "lite" for me. I prefer complete infobox, lets hear for other people comment for now. Furthermore, for RX-78, I expect picture of core fighter and blocks. I have fixed minor typo there yype-> type, adding nicer heading, and move main pilot to upper part. For specs, I think it is the best to left them intact with the articles, even better if design explanation is given. IMHO, the main MS-es should be split in separate article, especially the very notable ones (i.e. RX-78-2), added with model (and picture too (especially PG/MG)) or impacted production. But for now it may be the best to left it there. I am rather traumatized by deletionists action around wikipedia nowadays. Draconins 12:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank for replied and improvement. ^_^ I actually think about use infobox in other mecha article as well (like various Banpresto Originals). Now I decide to keep spec for those won't get infobox, though seperate spec section shall be merge with main part of article (like in RX-78 article). I usually find having closely-relate mech gather in single article is more fun to read, but that's just opinion. L-Zwei 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

About MG, PG, EX series

EX Models for supporting vehicle:

• UC
  • Dodaitwo [4]
  • Dopp [5], Garma Version: [6]
  • Gundam Trailer Truck [7]
  • Gunperry [8]
  • Magella tank [9]
  • Samson Trailer [10]

• CE
  • Exass [11]
  • Skygrasper and Mobius Zero [12]

Ex Models for vessels:

• UC
  • Albion [13]
  • Argama [14]
  • La Via En Rose [15]
  • Magellan and Salamis [16]
  • Musai Cruiser [17], collection: [18], [19]
  • White base [20]
• CE
  • Archangel [21], Coated: [22]
  • Eternal [23], Coated: [24]
  • Minerva [25]

Well I add this for helping improving the article. Please update if you know something. Maybe someone need to move this section after it become large. So far I only add EX modelDraconins 20:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the Official site is a better source :)

List of most plamo could be found here, too.

MythSearcher^talk 13:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, sometimes, they do not give good picture and up to date information. Such as, look for MG Strike Freedom there, as for now it still not there, while I have one in my home now. Sorry, I just notice your reply just now. ^^ Draconins 10:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well , just notice that the official Bandai Hobby Site has an English version, now. Here is the english version. Draconins 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And I though the last AfD nom was bad...

[26] The same thing also happen on RX-78 Gundam. Instead of proper AfD nom, the guy put simple deletion template without AfD nom (is that proper way to get article delete? Though I can see it would do harm if template is there too long). I remove it (hey, it's ZZ and RX-78!), but wonder if we can do anything as I don't think the guy will stop now. L-Zwei 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd just be better moving to a Gundam centric Wiki at this point. I'd love to just work on Gundam entries here but clearly certain nice people aren't content to do that and just want to edit this place in line with their own preferences.--HellCat86 04:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. I'm beginning to find the atmopshere to be uncooperative and rigid. 68.119.199.84 03:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have misunderstood that template. It is a template for a Proposed deletion, that is, if the article was not improved in 5 days, it will have to go through the AfD nomination. It is actually better than the last AfD, because it gives time for the editors to work on it and hopefully improve it enough to a point where it does not even need to go through the AfD process to be kept. I am currently adding Gundam project tags on the mobile weapon pages so that if any one did anything similar to them, we can be noticed immediately. (Also, feel free to start watching all the Gundam related pages.) MythSearcher^talk 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a prime example of why I feel Wikipedia no longer functions. Everything has to have a 100% fool-proof citation or the thought police remove it. Even when it is provided, biased people will still delete (all the damn Mobile Suit entries anyone?) 24.158.69.181 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gundam Seed Astray, need cleaning up?

Hey. I just joined this but im a fan of gundam seed/destiny/astray. I have all 3 of the Astray manga (the third recently coming out in english) and was wondering if it would be okay to clean up the section that wikipedia has on it. I don't mean astray destiny, I have not read that as of yet, but I would like to take the time to change up Astray some, if I have permission.

Nikato 17:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, this is wikipedia, you do not need permission to work on anything, just make sure your edits follow wiki's policy such as no speculation/original research. Here is a simplified ruleset that is pretty easy to follow. MythSearcher^talk 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template 'vandalism'

User:Dudeman74 has been editing various templates and entries that use them. This includes replacing certain timeline specific templates to more bloated ones which feature tons of entries. A few months ago I created an SD specific one, which he replaced with a link to the then current AU template. I put it back and left a note on the talk page discussing how he had no right to make that decision. After several months of being left alone, Dudeman again altered the template and deleted my note.--HellCat86 18:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to Template:Gundam, I am pretty sure most people would rather have all the information in one place rather than in so many seperate templates, and having to click so many links just to go to a Gundam series in another timeline. Plus, they are still are Gundam shows even though they are in different universes, they should not need to be in seperate templates. Also, I never saw anyone write a comment or complain about the template being removed and never saw anyone reply to your complaint about me deleting the SD Gundam template. I really did feel it was not needed since so many articles weren't even written, so that is why I deleted the comment you posted. I altered your template because it had errors and did not really remove anything, you should not just revert it without a reason, since this is Wikipedia and anyone should be able to edit it, it is not only for you to edit even though you made it. Also, I see that you are the only person complaining about larger templates, but your views do not always reflect everyone else's or else they would have posted here as well and complained about the template being 'bloated'. I really do not see whats wrong with having a large template, its not like you cannot minimize it. Dudeman74 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So your whole argument is "Currently no one has replied, therefore you stand alone"?--HellCat86 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that the Gundam template is too large, Universal Century series itself is lengthier than all the other series added together, and a series with plot relationship should be left alone to avoid confusion. MythSearcher^talk 03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A few things: one, per WP:BOLD, Dudeman has just as much right to edit the templates as anyone else, so he hasn't done anything wrong. Of course, you should discuss if you think the change might be controversial or challenged, etc, but sometimes you don't know that until you edit. However, I've never been a big fan of massively huge nav templates, and would agree that smaller more specific templates should be used. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

His edits have made the standard Gundam template too bloated. For SD, before I reverted it he'd made the various areas much less distinct (said template is divided between the SD timelines)--HellCat86 05:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the template is quite small for so much information and its not like they are not divided into sections for specific universes. I did nothing wrong to your template, I only made it smaller to match with the other templates. Dudeman74 16:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

HellCat, I agree that the template looks bad lumped together, but my point is that Dudeman didn't violate any rule or guideline by editing the template. This kind of thing happens all the time, and it's much easier to just revert and politely ask for discussion. Creating tension often makes the process harder than it needs to be, and many times the user who made the bad style change is willing to hear feedback and go with the flow. There's no reason to take offense to his changes, and because this is Wikipedia we can always revert back to old versions. -- Ned Scott 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware anyone is allowed to edit. The point is he's making choices on fairly major changes alone and then deleting arguments from those against them.--HellCat86 19:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No one made a comment about it or said anything after you posted the comment after a few months, so I thought that no one really cared and that it was no longer needed since you already reverted the template back and I took no further action, so that is why I removed it. Since you are the only person that ever complained about the edits I made, I did not think that your comment about the template was bloated was that important. So if everyone really dislikes the design you can always revert all the templates back, I just felt like trying something new and seeing if people would prefer everything in one place. Dudeman74 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ball/Ball K/Space Pod

They're currently listed as "Mobile Suits" and "Mobile Vechiles" but in the games they're clearly listed as Mobile Armours. In Gihren's Greed (both versions) the Ball is researched through MA research, Listed Under Mobile Armour in the Construction Listings, Uses MA stat for Pilots. I don't exactly recall all the sources that say this, but there is other sources to support this with Encounters in Space (PS2) and I think there is a brief mention of it in Zeta Gundam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.197.245 (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

• They're officially Mobile Pod. Ghiren's Greed include themin MA category since EF doesn't have actual MA to research and have seperate category would be waste. L-Zwei 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Heads-up on an AfD

I thought I should notify the wikiproject at large that I am nominating AMX-104 R-Jarja for deletion, a new article, but also all the articles in {{Template:Universal Century Mobile weapons}} for a merge or otherwise condensation. See the AfD for more info. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RX-78-2 is apparently not notable

Some [personal attack removed] have nominated RX-78-2 of all things for deletion. A little help keeping it out of the hands of this deletionist anti-Gundam cabal Wikipedia seems to have going would be much appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yzak Jule (talk • contribs) 07:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

The type of ignorance shown on AfD makes me hesistant to continue editting wikipedia at all. Seriously, one of the voters suggested that they punitatively dismantle this wikiproject along with deleting the article. WTF? Kyaa the Catlord 10:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest I was thinking the same thing (about the project needing a good hard look at) - the fannish details of the articles produced is certainly not in keeping with wikipedia. Don't get me wrong - as a general sci-fi fanboy I think the articles are great but in their current condition they don't belong here - too many long articles about things with no real world relevance - prose that is far too in-universe etc etc.

Can I suggest two things:

1) You solicit a couple of wikipedia editors who are NOT fans of the series to assist with the project, they can help give you some balance with the general goals of the community (I've been suggesting this to various projects for a while - I think every wikiproject needs a couple of general editors rather than fans).

2) If there is not a Gundamwiki - people here have a look at setting one up. You have amassed a fantastic amount of material and I suspect a general gundamwiki would be a real hit.

--Charlesknight 10:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The project is barely 9 months old. Holding it accountable for articles created in 2004 is completely unfair. Kyaa the Catlord 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Rather than blame a WikiProject people should be using them as a tool to help with the very cleanup they wish for. -- Ned Scott 10:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that people misuse AfD, it isn't meant to draw attention to articles needing cleanup, there are tags for that. It should be a last step in the process, not the first one as it has been in a number of these cases. Especially the CE mobile suit quagmire. Kyaa the Catlord 10:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a gundam Wiki, http://gundam.wikia.com -- Ned Scott 10:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I visited there last year and found it's ridiculous plague with fault info, something shouldn't happen when external wiki was creat, as staff should actively take care of them. I may have too high standard by compare it to X-Com's UFOpaedia, but that's my reason to leave the site alone. The founder just state at MAHQ forum that the site was pretty much abandoned long ago, as he really has no time to take care of it and though the site is already "gone" [27]. This is the second sickest joke I ever saw *sigh*... L-Zwei 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• This event demorale me...RX-78 is one of last Gundam article that should got AfD nom in my opinion (and now someone remove majority of the article). I will go and vote, but...I'm pretty much loss will to work on other article completly.

Semi-off topic. Ever heard the Budhist tale of donkey? It's about how a craftman spend several months to creat some beautiful pots, yet a donkey shatter them all with single kick. Does this mean the donkey is better than the craftman? No, while it can destroy all of beautiful pots so easily, it won't able to creat even single pot in whole life.... These deletionists just remind me of this tale...*sigh* L-Zwei 13:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think someone should nominate X-Wing for deletion with the very same rationale RX-78 is being judged on. Kyaa the Catlord 13:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you truly do believe that RX-78 has special well-referenced notability, I would suggest mentioning this in the AFD discussion, with reasons why it is notable. This is better than making comments about 'the type of ignorance shown on AfD', or arm-waving about other articles that exist. If you believe before the close of the 5 day period that article is very much different (i.e., better) from that which was initially nominated for deletion, let me know, and I will be only too happy to review my vote, and I am sure that many of the others who recommended 'delete' would do the same. This is not using AFD as cleanup, that's always been a poor call - we can only assess the article and its referencing, reliability, neutrality, tone, etc, "as is". Proto::► 13:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your instruction, sensei. I've stopped taking you seriously. Kyaa the Catlord 13:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And with that, I shall not even try and help you any further. Proto::► 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You were trying to help? I must have missed it in all the patronizing you were doing. 18:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In my case, who pretty much concern about now-removed spec, I translate it from Japaneese version of the article. So it is as reliable as any wikipedia article (which mean...isn't much?) *sigh* . L-Zwei 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was Farix's doing. I didn't cut anything from the article. (IMO, if the JP wiki has some refs for it, you should readd and reference the specs again.) Kyaa the Catlord 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been tempted to do likewise, nominate something like the X-Wing or the Enterprise just to see how people justify keeping them. It feels like they're saved by geeks for being Western pop culture. It's the same annoying logic that has certain people think Wikipedia EN means Wikipedia America--HellCat86 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, its totally systemic bias. I've been arguing that all morning. X-Wing is worse than this article, imho. Kyaa the Catlord 19:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i'm that '[personal attack removed]' who nominated the article above but also the entire category for merge/deletion. I can tell you right now I understand why you're angry, but that's no reason to insult those who vote to delete the article. When I joined wikipedia there were two large content deletion proposals, for various Starcraft articles and one for List of vehicles in the halo universe and other Halo-related stuff. Both got deleted. I was pissed. But when you think about it, does anyone go to wikipedia to find out the weight of the Warthog or the armaments of the RX-78? If you aren'ta fan, no. Frankly, it will be merged, because it obviously fails notability. Check them out yourselves WP:NOTE, there is no way you can say a single suit justifies a enduring contribution to society. Merged together, the category might still survive.

As to the comment above, 'It feels like they're saved by geeks for being Western pop culture. It's the same annoying logic that has certain people think Wikipedia EN means Wikipedia America'. Let's think about this. Go up to anyone on the street and ask them what the Enterprise is. I can bet around half, maybe more if you count the "huh... star trek/shatner something" responses. Apply the same paremeters to X-wing. You'll get more people aware of it. Now do the same with any Gundam mecha. Aside from japanese culture buffs at my school (aka the anime club), no one will know what you're talking about. Star Wars and Star Trek are recognizable cultural phenomenon, and the 'flagships' are not only key to the series but also recognizable icons in their own right. 'It's the same annoying logic that has certain people think Wikipedia EN means Wikipedia America', just because we're in the west doesn't make the criteria different. Jeez, listen to yourselves, just because they are deleting some of the stuff you've worked on doesn't mean that theres a 'clear bias' or they hate Gundam. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you give yourself too much credit. The [personal attack removed] is not you. I'm sorry your beloved articles were deleted in the past, but laugh at you right now. Kyaa the Catlord 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't give myself too much credit. I was mistaken. 'laugh at me' all you want; those articles will all be deleted; wikipedia is against you. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Lovely drama, you should get a live journal. Kyaa the Catlord 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Go out in the streets in Hong Kong, ask what Gundam is, people laugh at you because you do not know what it is. Go to Japan, well, a little bit better, people find you amazing since Gundam was and is the top ten Anime always listed in magazine polls, Go to Taiwan, Big cities in China, same thing applies. Search for the word Gundam on Google, compare the number of results against X-Wing and Starship Enterprise. You have no idea what kind of economic giant you are dealing with, Bandai got rich because of Gundam, they admit it, and used it as an icon on all of their model boxes as their copyright icon. Yes, that is the specific RX-78-2 Gundam on the little corner on the model box. Gundam was actually mentioned in a World War II weapon history book published in Japan, translated in Chinese by the author to make a similarity note. It might not be as popular in America or Europe due to the time of the showing in these few years (20 year old show having that kind of drawing is not going to appeal much to kids nowadays) However, it has survived 27 years in the anime community in Japan and a Hong Kong Japanese merchant obviously is a fan of Gundam and Char Aznable planned to pay to go to space with the mask on and say the famous phrase of Char in Space. SMAP(Japanese pop band) actually went on a TV show quoting Gundam phrases. Mitsubishi cooperation heavy industrial department actually held a seminar when recruiting employees with a name of If we are building a Gundam to show the process of their industrial site. Sources? WWII book ISBN given later, Japanese merchant speech was covered in most of the newspaper in HK, he failed the physical test and cannot go to space at the end if you want to know the details. SMAP TV show is NHK show called Akihabara life, Mitsubishi thingy could be found in their Japanese site. BTW, Korean labeled the word Gundam to be a general term meaning Robot per high court ruling, this is culturally significant enough, no? MythSearcher^talk 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading all the opprobrium here...

I decided not to tell you about my WP:PROD nominations of many of these fictional weapons articles. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for informing everyone of you WP:POINT campaign by deliberately throwing fuel on the fire of a contentious issue. The Administration board has been notified. --Farix (Talk) 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

...and when you do, they'll be sure to note the, frankly, raving quality of those interested in this project, you're contributions notwithstanding. I suggest you all take a chill pill and think things through. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't speck for anyone in this WikiProject, but I believe that the recent focus on Gundam articles by certain parties while attempting to make examples of and deride this WikiProject is entirely uncalled for. --Farix (Talk) 23:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you meant 'speak', but the point is, no one has a hit, so to speak, on Gundam articles. I've read some of the comic books! They were pretty good! But that doesn't change the grounds of AfD. I suggest if you want to save them, work on the two currently nominated. Get them up to snuff, and you'll have a valid defense that they can be habilitated. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't believe there is a hit out on Gundam articles? Well you only have to look here and here. As for cleanup up for the now three AfD nominations, I have attempted to clean up one while suggested merging the other two into a list—which is entirely appropriate and encouraged by WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole situation is getting stupid. Certain people keep consistently nominating Gundam entries, causing those of us for them to accuse them of bias. They then counter by accussing us of being raving fanboys. I'm sorry, it's childish. I'll admit there's probably bias on both sides but then I think this constant targeting of Gundam entries is practically bullying, carried out with an air that these are people wanting to subvert Wikipedia to their personal tastes--HellCat86 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Gundam.. people feel this way about most fictional articles when they see those massive nav templates. I'm a Gundam fan and all, but that's way too many articles. What we need is damage control, we need to identify the really non-notable ones so the more notable ones don't get easily lumped together with them. When there's that many articles people just get frustrated and do mass AfDs like that, and I understand their thinking. We need to come to terms that not every Gundam will get an article, in fact most won't. If we don't then things like this will happen and the notable ones will get thrown out with the non-notable ones. It's better than nothing, and it's more appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem of those articles. I am all for merging and deleting things like R-Jayja and such, but wanting to delete RX-78 in order to set an example to delete all the others? This is just sad, that nominator is simply some type of Gundam hater or something judging from his to do list. He did not assume good faith and know little about wiki policies, or at least twisting them to serve his own purpose. Wikipedia is not his own playground and these kind of nomination is doomed to stall and waste all of our time. MythSearcher^talk 07:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The nom is your fellow Wikipedian, so please give him some respect. From the perspective of a non-fan, that article looks no different from the rest. Don't assume the worst out of people who are honestly trying to improve Wikipedia. His nom might not be the best way to go about it, but it is in good faith, so please, enough with this attitude. He has done nothing wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If he does not try to be the least respectful on the topic, and ignored sources in the article as well as not assuming good faith along with twisting wikipedia's policy to serve his own interest, simply put, being a dick, why do I even want to assume good faith on this WP:IDONTLIKEIT act? What he is doing is just Oh! its fandom, burn it in hell along with all the sources. I did not use any personal attack, I am just stating the facts. I hold more respect to those contributors who go around deleting the spec portion and leave a little comment in the talk page saying the spec is not notable. MythSearcher^talk 09:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you guys decide to do, I say you do it in the next few hours (not days). Six more Gundam articles are now on the chopping block, regardless of if they could be merged or cleaned up instead of deleted. Frankly, I think this is getting beyond the point of ridicules. These "deletionists" are not helping on improving these articles nor are they giving anyone else time to do so either. Deletion should never be the first option to articles with problems. --Farix (Talk) 13:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Then clean them up. The point is not that they ought to be deleted because they need cleaning up, the point is that they ought to be deleted because they are not suitable for a general encyclopaedia, comprised (for the most part - not all, some are more notable and are more well-written than others) of original research ('some fans believe...', 'it is thought that...', 'many consider...', etc), all in in-universe language, and lack (and always would lack) reliable sources for verification (see what it says at the bottom of the edit window you're typing in?), thus shouldn't be on a general encyclopaedia. Proto::► 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after we remove those 'some fans believe...', 'it is thought that...', 'many consider...', etc stuff, we got in-universe issue instead, happy? L-Zwei 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

ABANDON SHIP

Hey there. I'm not a member of the Gundam WikiProject, but I do appreciate Gundam immensely, and I am an AfD regular- so when I saw the RX-78-2 up for deletion, along with a wide cross-section of other mecha articles, I was appalled. I've always thought Wikipedia's Gundam section was a section to be proud of in its comprehensiveness, but apparantly other editors do not agree. The culture here has gotten entirely too deletionist for my liking, and I think the entirety of the incredibly comprehensive Gundam section is in danger.

I think moving things to a Gundam-centric wiki would be the best course of action at this point, as the culture of Wikipedia now seems antithetical to the kind of hard work you guys have put in. Here is the first one that comes up on Google. What do you guys think of moving absolutely everything in there? I've heard of it being done in other cases, but I don't know if the process must be manual, or if there's a way to automate the process. Does anyone have more of an idea how to do things, or should I just start copying pages over now, or is there a better alternative I'm overlooking?

I really want to help you guys out- who might know how? Maybe one of the MetaWiki guys? -Toptomcat 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have decided not to do anything for now, there are stuff that I wanted to merge and clean up anyway. Spending time with those irrational deletionist is just wasting my time, that is what they are seeking: editors in this project ending up with no time to improve the article and at the end making them able to try to nominate desembling this project itself. They do not even want to follow rules in WP:FICT that minor characters should get a list. (The most unreasonable nom would be the RX-78 which is already a list) They can shovel WP:ICANBULLYYOU all they want, the articles can be recreated one by one as long as we can create a process of deciding which should be kept and what should be in a long list(also what lists should there be). All the articles go through this project's editor's inspection, rewritten to a point where any of those AfD is just going to make them look more irrational and vandal/troll like. Join me, let them have their small victory over old and outdated cruff, and we will gain back a larger ground later and laugh at their short-sightedness. For the admin up there, would you kindly try to be the closing admin of RX-78 Gundam and let them know what is the realistic side of the world they do not understand. MythSearcher^talk 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much loss drive to do anything right now. I do have plan to merge several articles together, but with AfD nom occur everyday, it demorale me. L-Zwei 16:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If the articles are kept or not, I think it would be a great idea to copy the articles to http://gundam.wikia.com. I've been asking around, and it seems Special:Export can be used on the Wikipedia side, then someone on Wikia can use Special:Import, and it will even have a copy of the page history. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There are enormously huge numbers of articles on every single gundam. Is well-written and sourced as these are, I took the liberty of merging some. However, the resultant article was huge. Such a price to pay. However, I did condense 20 articles into 1, so that's good. ~ Flameviper 19:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The sooner a proper Gundam wiki is completed the better, I'm sick of the thought police. 24.158.69.181 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sick of biased anime haters who make up their own rules saying anime magazines are not reliable sources for an anime(Which the wiki policy asks for expert published material as sources, and obviously anime magazines are expert published sources of anime) or anything of the anime sort is not notable, ignoring the fact that millions(a fool proof source of this can be any Japanese or Chinese magazine polling on which anime is the best, millions of people voted) of people are watching it, discussing it outside of their own little world lacking anime. However, let them be, if they want fool proof sources, we will provide fool proof sources. Wikipedia is here to provide information, as long as we can follow the policies, they cannot do anything but move to other things. MythSearcher^talk 04:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Export as fast as possible. Deletionists are on the move. Honestly, it would be pretty amusing if all that was left here were a couple of stubs with links to the new wikia. Shrumster 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I got about 100 MB so far of exported Gundam articles, including all the recently deleted ones, but no one really seemed interested in moving stuff over to Wikia so I kind of lost interest. We can still go that path, if people want. Also, even the deleted articles are not really in danger, as most admins are fine about undeleting an article so you can export it (deletion doesn't actually delete the data, and any article can be restored from deletion). -- Ned Scott 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully support moving everything to Wikia. The internet needs a centralized Gundam resource, away from the hands of realists who want everything they deem "unreal" and "unnotable" to be forgotten. Shrumster 05:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that while some editors are probably indeed "deletionists" or "inclusionists" most editors are neither and their recommendation in an afd is based on whether the subject has "multiple independent, reliable, and verifiable sources" which satisfy WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS , WP:NOR and in this case WP:FICT. While Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it has more articles as well as longer articles than any paper encyclopedia, many editors want the articles to be about subjects which seem "encyclopedic," meaning they are of sufficient importance that they might conceivably deserve an entry in a real world encyclopedia. Failure to meet these guidelines is the reason used to remove articles about many other things than the articles related to your project. Churches, authors, businesses, professors, shopping centers, libraries, political candidates, musicians, and many other subjects which are not notable get deleted too. There has been general agreement that the Gundam series is notable. The Statue of Liberty is notable, too, but we will not have articles on every nut and bolt and square foot of copper covering it and every block of stone in the foundation and every stairtread inside. A sports team may be notable, but we will not have articles on every individual game they have ever played. A TV game show may be notable, but not every person who appeared on every episode. A city may be notable, but not every house and building and person in it. A reason for the non-notability of a gadget, location, character, battle, or whatever is that the thing has not individually been the subject of coverage independent from the appearance in the series. As for magazines as sources, I would support their being used to support the keeping of an article if they meet WP:RS. It helps if they are edited by identified persons who are responsible for the accuracy of the content, they should be published and sold to a large readership. I would not support their use if, say, they were fan magazines of limited distribution, or if they were websites where anyone can post anything anonymously. An interview with a writer or producere in a magazine of wide circulation could be a source, as could a book which meets the general standards for reliable and independent sources. There can be both articles in Wikipedia about a show and the main characters and a special Wiki can be devoted to infinite articles about everything in every frame of animation of the show. Sherlock Holmes has been a popular fiction series for 120 years, but only the main characters have articles here. There have been fancubs for a hundred years which discuss every detail and speculate about things only hinted at and publish fan fiction. A separate Wiki can do that for Gundam. Please assume good faith WP:AGF and do not sit around fulminating about deletionists picking on you and your project. Best wishes. Edison 18:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if those nuts and bolts that made up the SoL had their own (overpriced) model kits, toys and video games, I wouldn't mind. :) The problem with the sources though is that many people judge "wide circulation" with a slanting towards the english-speaking world. Many of the magazines that we can potentially use are in Japanese (and occasionally, Korean/Chinese). I've only collected Animerica 'cause that's what I can read. Newtype, MS Hobby Magazine, etc. are in Japanese. And these aren't "fan magazines" any more than Fly Fishing Magazine is a "fan magazine" for the subject of Fly Fishing, or Fine Scale Modeller is a "fan magazine" for military scale modeling. Hmm, you can even think of Entertainment Weekly as a "fan magazine" for the American film & television industry. Being in the scientific field, I can definitely claim that Marine Ecological Progress Series and Copeia have smaller distributions than Newtype. I doubt that anyone would doubt using these "magazines" for sources about their topics though. The problem with the Sherlock Holmes issue is that A. C. Doyle never really published detailed stats on Holmes' pipe and hat. Bandai has done that for the suits. While I don't agree with listing down the specific stats for mobile suits in WP (Wikia is fine), they are official, and don't fall under WP:NOR/fancruft. I do agree however, that most of the Gundam articles need some work to address them from an out-of-universe perspective. And we're not sitting around (well, not me). We're just ranting while working. Shrumster 18:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:GUNDAM, Constructive Campaign

Okay, guys, I hate to waste time with those deletionist, they obviously have nothing better to do and is not an expert in any field they can contribute and have to show their little significance in nominating AfD without really reading the policies. Well, we do not have to play their game, especially we have little to lose anyway. Let them waste their time in deleting the articles, playing their own little game without an opponent, helping us to create better ones not building on sand. I hereby suggest giving up ALL the mobile weapons pages except for the few we actually have worked on exclusively, those that we have worked on siding with wikipedia policy that we can just laugh at those ignorant arrogant deletionists that they have ignored the policies and are just being irrational. There will be a small time window where people cannot get these kind of information here, well, we have to deal with that sooner or later, not to mention a lot of those articles are actually providing incorrect information anyway. We should now set up a plan to recreate articles, one by one, from scratch, build on concrete foundation, build with steel(maybe lunar titanium or even Gundarium Gamma :).
Here is my plan:

1. Set up an article creation guideline, and a review system, so that articles will be reviewed here before actually putting up on where it should be.
2. Set up more reference templates that are general, make it as accessible as possible.
3. Starting from the most famous units from the begining of the series, probably following something like the MG model releasing list, judge each unit on a case by case bases and see if it is notable. At least 3 secondary source should be given.
4. Ditch the detail spec, list only the height of the unit and main weapons types, link to mahq and Gundam wikia so that readers can find those specs. The height is there so that people can have a good reference of how big the unit is and how the scaled model fits military scale models. (Fitting military scale models making it a big hit in the 80's is sourced from Dengeki Hobby magazine november, 2006 issue, cover featured topic, Page 5, 11, 15)
5. Get at least one article good enough to be featured, shovel the featured article in the face of those deletionist while improving others to a point where the whole category is featured.
   

We can discuss more details once we have a consensus, but I say we move as soon as possible, team up against the bullying deletionist, let those fanatic deletionism fans know their limit and they should stop twisting the rules. MythSearcher^talk 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, too bad I'm so depress and unlikely to recover soon. Actually, I'm almost cry when see this, it's insult! (ridiculous lenght, so if my connection speed is low, I have no right to edit here?) If the guy who author it think this is help, I don't want one. Fact that he call all info shitload here (not that I see hope to save that article) mean the guy give no though of it at all (and I feel like he making fun of us). Sorry if my whinning bother you, if I'm few years younger, I would cry already. Sorry if you think I just think worst of people, Ned Scott-san. But I think they better tell the truth how they just think we have no right here at all, rather than cover it with fake beautiful words (it may be not, but I can't bring myself to believe that at all). L-Zwei 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There must be some type of complain we can make, what they are doing is obviously not helping, but vandalism. But I am not going to do that. Let them do what they want, these kind of childish ganging up acts are not getting them anywhere, just ignore them and they will eventually know how childish they are. All we should do is make useful contributes, good enough to shut them up. MythSearcher^talk 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have made a friend so I don't dare make any edits on anything I intend to want to last. This has gone too far. Kyaa the Catlord 18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's these kinds of responses that make me not want to help out at all and change my vote back to delete. I'm so sorry you guys have decided to take this personally, but those AfDs have every right to occur. We've had several guidelines to discourage things from getting this far, so don't blame someone else when they finally call you on it. To a non-fan all these articles look alike, and they all look like a mess. It's not a personal attack, it's not vandalism, it's an honest and realistic response from your fellow editors. Could they be wrong, yes, but getting pissed off at them won't help and only makes the rest of us look like assholes. Instead of making this a battlefield lets see what we can do to solve the situation. Even if articles get deleted, guess what, they can be restored because information isn't permanently erased (just hidden). This is not the end of the world, and if we all act calmly and get a plan going then we can get things set straight. -- Ned Scott 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what I have just said up there, and sorry, what they have done is just making a point. The RX-78 Gundam AfD nom was there to be a precedent on deleting the rest, it should be taken care of before nominating the rest. But no, someone decided to nominate a dozen of others just because the RX-78 happened to have enough source and notability and they are losing the battle. We keep the RX-78, forget about the rest and keep on. They all look the same to non-fans, yes, but this is wikipedia, if they happen to have read the policy, articles of the same nature should still be treated on a case by case bases, which they did not, and just plan to delete them all without looking through them. (There is no way one can read all of those articles in two days time, the only possible way is open the window, see a short essay, decide it is not useful and tag it with AfD nom) There are in fact tags like a stub or clean up for that kind of articles, tag it, let it sit for maybe five days each and if nobody cared to improve it, do an AfD nom then. They have used personal attack, insulted fans and such, I did not even use any personal attacks or insulting words on any of them, I am just stating the fact that most of the delete votes are obviously showing how they did not care about the topic and disproval of all sources that are valid for wikipedia. Let them be dicks, they have every right to do so according to wikipedia guidelines, I agree sometimes it is necessary, I have created none of the other articles they have nominated other than the MP-02A one, and I had thought of doing a speedy deletion on it because I wanted to include it into a list anyway. They have been unreasonable, and they have started the battle. We are just here to contribute to wikipedia, not fight a war. BTW, the articles might not just be hidden, pass AfD have shown the so called salt it action that will remove all history record to prevent people from reverting. I know I sound violent, I am just angry because the level of unreasonable and twisting of wikipedia's policy in the AfD noms I have seen shaped me this way. MythSearcher^talk 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not trying to be mean, they're just frustrated and see this as the quickest way to improve wikipedia for the better. Like I said, they could be very much wrong (or right), but their hearts are in the right place. Both sides have gotten pretty heated, but that happens in these situations, forgive and forget. The point now is to calm everyone down. Salted or not, a calm and rational discussion can restore articles. Consensus can change on Wikipedia, and we pride ourselves in not being set in stone in our decisions. The other point is that all of the Gundam articles can (and will) be transwikied to http://gundam.wikia.com, although some articles should stay on Wikipedia as well. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are not, and maybe they are, that is not my concern as of now. They can do what ever they want, as long as they follow rules. What makes me angry is that some of them did not, and still thinks that they are. The gundam wikia is not a place I have stayed, and I have no wish in going to. I am an editor of wikipedia, not gundam wikia's. I see no reason in moving to another place just because somebody pushes me around, saying everything they do not understand as fandom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but information with primary and secondary sources should be kept, nobody have rights to disregard the sources (like saying an anime magazine is not a reliable source on the case of anime). MythSearcher^talk 06:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikia also uses the GFDL it's a great place to put things back into Wikipedia when they have improved. Think of it as a testing grounds for the articles in the gray area. In any case, because it's all GFDL, there will soon be a copy of every single Gundam article on Wikia, complete with edit history, for safe keeping. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, I suggest you vote a delete or merge in MP-02A Orgg though. I created that article and I personally wished to have it merge to list of MS IGLOO mobile weapons instead of keep. MythSearcher^talk 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my proposal: We abandon all of the mecha articles other than those which are primary or titular mech. We're in a losing battle because this Project inheritted a whole load of crap. We do not need an article for every single mecha in these series, but if we focus on the primary ones and improve those, we at least stand a chance of keeping them. In order to do this, we need to agree on which ones are the primary and titular mechs, focus on those and ignore the rest as cannon fodder. They can have the little ones, we need to save the big ones. We already lost a bunch on the CE fiasco, lets not lose heart and lose them all, k? Kyaa the Catlord 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is very much the direction we should go in. Speaking of the past AfD articles, we can get those restored for a transwiki to the gundam wikia, so it's not actually "lost". -- Ned Scott 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree but I suggest go further, only keep 3 articles for now, RX-78, Z and ZZ. Let them have the rest(of course if they do not nominate something for deletion, let it be), these 3 are the ones from the first 3 series, and all of them have further influence on other series, especially the originally unofficial Gundam Sentinel. Gundam Century and Gundam Sentinel special edition is the best secondary source we can use, it is not written by a primary objective, in fact, most of the articles in it(Other than the novel itself) are critical reviews on earlier Gundams from fans of that time(They are not hired by the company, yet they are still working on a project like that). Sentinel even sourced a Newtype issue reviewing the story. BTW, I voted for a merge on the CE articles just like I voted for a merge on the other AfD nom on insignificant UC units, I might sound angry but I am following wikipedia rules. MythSearcher^talk 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so am I. I have read the talk here and it seems as though the articles you wish to keep are the ones I wish to keep as well and have no intention of nominating.

That said, would you be alright with some more AFD noms today of articles that it seems we both agree should go? I will provide a full list of these articles before I nominate if you wish so you can see which ones are alright with you and which ones are not. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Moreschi! The list would be helpful, making afd noms looks, well, complicated. Kyaa the Catlord 09:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the pages with lengthy paragraphs should be saved until the end, the others, I have not even look at those much(Like I have said, it is impossible to work on so much stuff in such short time, especially most of the pages I am contributing in wiki is not Gundam related.) and I don't see much to protect out there right now. (So might have really good written articles, but it is really hard to judge their notablity if they are not even used by main characters. However, I still suggest putting it up for AfM nom instead of AfD nom (Or just simply merge them without wasting time going through the process per WP:BOLD jjust do a better job than that Earth Federation list, delete the templates) MythSearcher^talk 09:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt responses, guys! I agree with Mythsearcher about the multiple paragraphs - after all, if someone was able to write multiple paragraphs, there must be something there. It doesn't seem as though as Requests for Merging page exists, so either we just merge ourselves or when there's nothing to merge, then AFD. Alright, here goes. More generally, I think it best if we all stop running around like headless chickens in circles at ANI and start talking to each other and dealing with the issues at hand.

• MSM-01 Zaku Marine Type
• MSN-04 Sazabi
• MS-13 Gatsha
• RMS-099 Rick Dias
• MSN-04 Sazabi

These are the first lot: some more in a few hours, but I'm currently busy. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick response go!

• The Zaku should be merged into the main Zaku article (which is also godawfully long and problem needs a huge amount of snipping down, omg stats!). I feel the Zaku should be kept since its the primary, grunt mech of the "enemy" forces throughout the inital couple of Gundam series but the articles NEED work.
• Sazabi is the mecha pilotted by the title character of Char's Counterattack.
• Rick Dias needs to be added to a list, not have its own article. Its gets a lot of screentime, but isn't terribly iconic. (Unlike the Zaku which is almost as popular as the Gundam itself.)
• Hell, I don't even know what the Gatsha is. :P I'm no help there.
• Thanks for posting these here before nominating them. (Um, anyone who isn't as clumbsy as me want to get started by merging the Marine Zaku into the Zaku II page?) Kyaa the Catlord 11:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I think prod-ing these would be fine. I don't think there's too much need for discussion on them. (I could be wrong of course.) And, um, did you mean to list the Sazabi twice? (One of these days I HAVE to watch Char's Counterattack. Its been collecting dust for far too long.) Kyaa the Catlord 11:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and while we are merging, why not merge all the Zakus together. Removing the specs would help with the length of the article. There doesn't need to be a page for Zaku I, Zaku II, Zaku III... Zaku Infinity... Kyaa the Catlord 11:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note I've tagged MS-13 Gatsha, RMS-099 Rick Dias, MSN-04 Sazabi with PROD tags as seems to be okayed above. I haven't touched the Zaku ones as I don't know where you are with the merge. Proto::► 12:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request the PROD removed from the Sazabi. Since its the primary mecha of the protagonist of Char's Counterattack, this is one of the ones that I'd like to improve rather than be rid of.... I guess I wasn't clear. Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to remove it at any time, if you believe it can be salvaged, no problem ... although, do you think a section containing what referenced and non-OR info there is in the Sazabi article on the Char's Counterattack article (Char's Counterattack?) might be better, with a redirect from the Sazabi page to there? Basically a merge. Proto::► 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking of doing that from the individual pilot's pages in the end. Merging a bunch of them, having very short descriptions of the mecha (unless they are notable like the Hyakku or the Sazabi). But my wiki-fu is lacking, I'd like to do a lot, but I'm not terribly skilled at doing it. :( Kyaa the Catlord 12:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I suggest doing the following for now: Merge the mecha to the coresponding series itself. For example, merge MSN-04 Sazabi and RX-93 Nu-Gundam and all the little target mecha of that series into the article Char's Counterattack. Which seems to be what we should have done from the very beginning. We then build up the section slowly and if it made the main article too long, we separate the whole mecha section out to an article called List of Mobile weapons in Char's Counterattack. And if it is still too long (For the Zeta, ZZ, Seed, Seed-D series, it is surely the case) split it into factions. And if that still does not work, separate out the main character units. This seems to be the most reasonable way to keep most of those articles for now on wiki and follow the WP:FICT precisely as the character section. (We treat the mecha as characters, a lot of their pilots do not even have screen time) MythSearcher^talk 13:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The above sounds reasonable to me. Kyaa the Catlord 13:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the way to save time for everyone, and if someone still think it is OR or fancruff, they can tag an OR tag in those sections. I will not start doing this until tomorrow(It is 10:00pm here and I am very tired after a day's work, I usually steal time during work for wiki edits), so that anyone who opposes can leave their comments here. I suggest not to put up the AfD noms because redirecting the articles essentially blank the page. If someone really want to do something right now, tag a suggested merge tag on top of those articles and direct people here to discuss instead. MythSearcher^talk 14:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that feeling. I spend a lot of time avoiding work by being here. :P Yesterday I was so stressed out by this I couldn't sleep and had to call in sick. I should not let this get in the way of my life, but... I fail. Kyaa the Catlord 14:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was really ill when all this happened, needed to stay on bed all day and when I happened to be a little bit better got off bed and wished to look at some random page, I saw the AfD nom on my watch list. I guess I can never understand some of those deletionist, merging the article as a section of the series takes like what, 2 minutes? Why even try to go through this process? Five days of frustration, possible personaly attacks, arguements that they are unlikely to win due to their opponents are experts of the field, etc. MythSearcher^talk 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Still not fully recover, though it really more of my real-life issue rather than this AfDs. Well, I guess merge it as section to specify series/faction should be best solution for now. Also, I think article on Zaku II, Dom, GM and maybe Gelgoog shall be kept (still need to clean-up by remove spec and trim detail down) as well. They're, especially Zaku II, influence many of later mech design (sometime not limit to Gundam, actually) they also have large number of variants and good place to merge other relate article (like GM III or Zaku I). Here is another question, is there any policy/essay involve translate or use Japaneese article as source? L-Zwei 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your question, maybe someone at wikipedia:translation will have an answer? Kyaa the Catlord 05:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I remember seeing something saying it is best to include the original passage if it is translated, but I suspect that will violate copyright laws. MythSearcher^talk 06:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean the Japaneese Wikipedia article. I doubt that it would be consider as reliable source, but unlikely to be count as mere fanmade source either. L-Zwei 11:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I kinda have every other reason for saying the Japanese wiki is very close to a fanmade source without actual sources. I have read some of the linked page and see no references, I actually deleted some of the information found in the Japanese wiki articles because those are fan speculation. The English wiki is the most confusing I have been to(I use and edit the Japanese and Chinese wiki as well) also the most unforgiving and unreasonable. Given, it might just be the system is less set in stone in the other two, both of them consist all of the rubbish, fancruff, trash that need to burn with flames in the eyes of some of those deletionist. MythSearcher^talk 13:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all! Here's some more that IMO should not exist as individual articles.

• AMX-014 Doven Wolf - ok, so, it appeared in the TV series, but that's no way good enough for notability. If this one is to stay around on its own it needs another assertion of notability.
• PMX-003 The O - lots of OR, no assertion of notability.
• PMX-002 Bolinoak Sammahn - 1 sentence and specifications.
• RX-139 Hambrabi- ditto.
• RX-160 Byarlant - ditto.
• RX-121 Gundam TR-1 Hazel
• RMS-106 Hi-Zack - lots of material, but no sources, no assertion of notability and reads like fanboy cruft. It isn't, but needs cleanup or merging.
• RMS-108 Marasai - no assertion of notability.
• NRX-044 Asshimar - maybe merge? Asserts notability in-fictional-universe but not in the real world.
• LRX-077 Sisquiede - no assertion of notability.
• LRX-088 Dezpada - ditto.
• RX-110 Gabthley - 1 sentence and specifications.
• ORX-013 Gundam Mk-V - no assertion of real-world notability.
• PMX-001 Pallas Athene - 1 sentence and specifications.
• RMS-154 Barzam] - no assertion of real-world notability.
• MSA-007 Nero - ditto.
• MSN-01 Kikeroga - ditto, pretty much. Insufficient assertion of notability.
• NRX-055 Baund Doc - 1 sentence and specifications.
• MSA-005 Methuss - no assertion of real-world notability.
• MSK-008 Dijeh - ditto.
• MS-08TX Efreet - ditto.
• MS-09 Dom - ditto. Lots of material, though, so worth saving. A prime candidate for a merge.
• MS-21C Dra-C - no assertion of real-world notability.
• AMX-004 Qubeley - ditto.
• RX-105 Xi Gundam - ditto.
• AMX-017 Gigantic - ditto, pretty much. Insufficient assertion of notability.
• NZ-000 Quin Mantha - no assertion of real-world notability.
• SP-W03 Space Pod - ditto.

If all this seems a bit cruel, I am trying to help - work with not war against. I am not into deleting for the sake of it. My aim is to help you cleanup and bring much of this excellent material in line with WP policy - such as WP:V and WP:OR. Much of this can be saved by merging. Looking back, I see that the main problem is a lack of assertions of notability, which is actually a WP:SPEEDY criteria. This is fairly easy to fix, so this perhaps should be priority.

As regards of merging, we now have List of Military Units in Mobile Suit Gundam to merge things to. The problem with this is that it is too crufty, still. I would recommend doing a list along the lines of List of major opera composers. In fact, I would recommend this next step as a matter of urgency. Do short annotated mentions of each weapon, with citations for each annotation. That should be fine. Morever, Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe is quite crap and needs trimming and lots of assertions of notability, but is worth persevering with. Perhaps WP:FL at some stage for one of these?

I would appreciate it if articles that you feel appropriate for PROD are struck through out of my list above once merges have been completed, or it has been decided that WP:V cannot be fulfilled and that the articles should just go. More generally, it is a genuine pleasure to work with those who really know what they are talking about, a welcome break from sometimes that you have to put up with. Best to all, Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Early Earth Trainwreck was created by someone who was pushing for deletion of the articles that he merged into it. It is a real mess and needs a blanket delete, he didn't delete the pages he tried to merge so we could probably PROD that list (at least as soon as he gets the AfD he made after making the trainwreck withdrawn. If it isn't withdrawn and his delete goes through, I'm not sure what to do since its so badly merged.) That list is one of the reasons I'm not jumping to merge the articles myself, I know I don't know what I'm doing and don't want to make a complete mess of it. The only one in this list that I even recognize (beside the Space Pod due to the utter stupidity of the damn floating eye) is the Hi-Zack, which could be merged into the propsed Zaku page, since its a derivative of the Zaku. This is my opinion and I'm not a guntaku, so I could be terribly wrong. Kyaa the Catlord 16:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps see WP:MERGE? It doesn't really matter how badly you balls up, this is a wiki and someone will come and clean up afterwards. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Depending on how good/bad tonight's scheduled maintainence goes at work, I'll start merging some of these. Hold on tight. Kyaa the Catlord 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Will do. If you could strike through the ones you feel appropriate for PROD, I'd be much obliged. Want some help, you know where to find me:) Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Went/going crappy. The only one I wouldn't strike through is the HiZack, cause I'm going to move that into the Zaku merge. I don't normally work outages, but everytime I do, they suck. Kyaa the Catlord 10:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. If anyone wants to get more into and understand how Wikipedia's deletion practices work, they are welcome to join us at WP:SCISSORS, which is most certainly not the cabal. At any rate there are some useful links there that are interesting reading. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And some more...I've got more time know that I thought. Before I was just checking the pages that were blue to me and not purple.

• MSN-03 Jagd Doga - I'm going to PROD this one right now as seeing as it only appears twice it would seem to be completely non-notable: revert me if there is notability. Perhaps could be merged but this can be easily be done before the 5 day prod.
• RMS-141 Xeku Eins - little assertion of real-world notability.
• MSM-03 Gogg - ditto. Part of my original and now infamous PROD campaign, but this one does seriously suck not a little. WP:V, WP:FICT, WP:OR, WP:RS.
• NZ-333 Alpha Azieru - exact ditto.

O.K, that's enough for today. I'll finish off the list tomorrow but I think most the problematic ones are either here now or at AFD. Best to all, Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For one liner articles with addition of spec, I don't think delete them is big deal at all. L-Zwei 03:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So I can PROD the lot with the exception of that one that Kyaa mentioned above, yes? Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's how I see it. Kyaa the Catlord 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Add to the list: MS-19 Dolmel. Transwikied to Wikia. George Leung 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Prodded. I have not prodded RMS-106 Hi-Zack per request and NZ-333 Alpha Azieru has at least the notability of being in the movie, so I've left that one for now. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I don't get it. The Alpha Azieru is notable because it was in the movie, but the Jagd Doga, which was also in the movie, isn't? I'm confused. MalikCarr 20:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to prod that article, I'll endorse it for you. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is really not the time for inane humor. You've given a rationale that, since a mobile weapon appeared in the movie, it has some notability. If that was your criteria for not deleting articles, a great injustice has been done already. Was that a joke or is there some meaning to your statement I don't understand? MalikCarr 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't and didn't delete anything, I'm not a sysop. You are quite right: appearing in the movie is no provider of notability, the article contains no multiple non-trivial references to it from multiple reputable sources included to support notability, and as such is a prime candidate for deletion. The only reason why I left this one alone is because it contained some reference to the real world, which the vast majority of these articles did not, and by that time the nominations for deletion were starting to cause controversy. My criteria for deletion is not whether something appears in some movie: it's whether assertions of real-world notability are supported by cited non-trivial references to the subject from multiple reputable sources. Perhaps a redirect and merge for this article, or a transwiki and then a PROD or AFD? Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just add trimmed-down version of LRX-077 Sisquiede,LRX-088 Dezpada and AMX-017 Gigantic, as well as partial of AMA-002 Neue Ziel, ‎NZ-333 Alpha Azieru and AMX-004 Qubeley to G Generation Original Units. Please review it, much of info are loss but I think it's ok to redirect the first three articles now. Please review it, I'm only good at modified existing info (as said before, I ussually add new info by translate Japaneese Wikipedia article - which isn't much reliable than us :p ). So trimming down stuff is all I can do to help now. *sigh* L-Zwei 12:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Military Units in Mobile Suit Gundam created, merging articles

This is what I am doing right now, it seems to be more crufty but there are indeed independent sources. I tried to include it into the Mobile Suit Gundam article but it is already 44 kb after the battleships of Zeon alone. MythSearcher^talk 09:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I have seen the page. IMHO, if you want to merge, it is better to divide into vessels article and other support units article as CE articles, now. If you want to combine whole of them, I guess article explosion is lurking to happen. Draconins 10:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the main reason I stopped. deciding on deleting the info-boxes or separating the articles. I guess separating seems ok for this one, but I suspect the separated articles will be nominated for deletion again. MythSearcher^talk 12:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay...the second reason I stopped is because any large edit I send out returns a cannot load page. My home connection is really bad and if anyone got time to keep going, please feel free to do so, I cannot work on anything probably until Monday at work. MythSearcher^talk 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Need help making a list of ALL Gundam articles

To export the articles and histories of Gundam articles to wikia:gundam I basically need to put their names into Special:Export (one at a time to get the max page revisions). It's a bit more insane than I first thought, since it's hard to just see a list of all Gundam articles (as in, all articles relating to Gundam). Not only that, but if an article is a result of a merge then I also need the titles of the articles that still hold page histories for that content.

I've already exported the articles and histories for all Gundam articles currently listed for AfD, but I would really like to give a full copy of all our Gundam related content to wikia:gundam. This would give the articles a safe place to be kept and would greatly help out the Gundam Wikia site by giving them a much needed quality boost.

So if anyone wants to help me compile such a list, I would be in your debt. -- Ned Scott 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I might be able to get them all via the categories and templates, but if anyone knows of any articles that are the result of merging, that information would be very useful. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rebirth of CE, AC, and UC Deleted MS articles

What pissed me off the most is that the Impulse Gundam, as well as about every single article in CE, got deleted. I say, this time we draw a line in the sand; I will attempt to recreate it, but I will need as much help as possible. if they do it to Gundam, we will do it to star trek; we will do it to star wars; we will take it to every single western Sci-fi and fight it. In any case, The articles that should nto be eliminated/reinstated are mainly the following: High Priority:

• Impulse Gundam
• Destiny Gunda

(and more shall be added) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 01:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Please don't escalate this and make it even uglier than it already is. We've been able to get one of the nominators to scratch his "hit list" for the time being while efforts are made to improve the articles and bring them inline with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. We don't need anyone else creating our own "hit list" in retaliation. --Farix (Talk) 02:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to appease certain individuals because they have an axe to grind in this situation. It feels like we're drawing up agreements with the Third Reich; "This is my last territorial demand, I promise." And then they invade France. The unsigned comment above really has a point, even if we don't like it. MalikCarr 21:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

These articles will all be restored on wikia:gundam. I'm still sorting through AfDs, existing articles, and so on, so if you want you can give me specific titles so I don't miss them. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted articles to be restored on Wikia

I'm starting a list of articles that have been deleted that should be imported to wikia:gundam. Feel free to add to the list so I don't miss any. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• TS-MA2 Moebius
• GAT-01A1 105 Dagger
• GAT-X102 Duel Gundam
• GAT-X103 Buster Gundam
• GAT-02L2 Dagger L
• GAT-04 Windam
• GAT-X370 Raider Gundam
• GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam
• GAT-X131 Calamity Gundam
• GAT-X207 Blitz Gundam
• GAT-X303 Aegis Gundam
• GFAS-X1 Destroy
• TS-MA4F Exass
• TS-MB1B Euclid
• TSX-MA717/ZD Pergrande
• YMAF-X6BD Zamza-Zah
• YMAG-X7F Gells-Ghe
• AMA-953 BABI
• AMF-101 DINN
• TFA-2 ZuOOT
• UMF-4A GOOhN
• UMF-5 ZnO
• UMF/SSO-3 ASH
• ZGMF-515 CGUE
• ZGMF-600 GuAIZ
• ZGMF-1017 GINN
• ZAFT Armed Keeper of Unity
• ZGMF-X11A Regenerate Gundam
• ZGMF-X12A Testament Gundam
• ZGMF-X13A Providence Gundam
• ZGMF-X23S Saviour Gundam
• ZGMF-X24S Chaos Gundam
• ZGMF-X31S Abyss Gundam
• ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam
• ZGMF-X56S Impulse Gundam
• ZGMF-X666S Legend Gundam
• ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam
• ZGMF-X2000 GOUF Ignited
• MVF-M11C Murasame
• ORB-01 Akatsuki
• ZGMF-XX09T DOM Trooper
• MAW-01 Mistral
• NMS-X07PO Gel Finieto
• GSF-YAM01 Δ Astray
• GSX-401FW Stargazer
• UT-1D Civilian Astray DSSD Custom
• YMS-16M Xamel
• MSF-007 Gundam Mk-III

• Gwa-Dann class battleship (too old?)

Only keep the important ones... truly important ones

I think about it, and I agree; some of them are way too much (Gundam RX-78-2's old version), but some should definitely be kept.

So here's the list that i think should be kept:

• RX-78
• Zaku Family (Universal century) —group MS-05 and MS-06, as well as Hi-zack and Zaku-III to one.
• Zeta Gundam
• ZZ gundam
• Nu Gundam
• Formula Series (merge both F97 and F91)
• V series
• AC Gundams
• Impulse Gundam
• Destiny Gundam
• ZAKU (CE) and merge with GOUF

other ntoables that i haven't list is because they exist here... for now.

also, Instead of listing eveyr single specification, only list the main one (eg: for Zaku, only list MS-05 and MS-06.)

I haven't checked these out in detail, but I suspect I agree. I certainly think that those articles which assert real-world notability should stay for now. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some I agree with, some not. Why Impulse and Destiny? That seems to be personal preference, like if I highlighted Shining and God Gundam.--HellCat86 21:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Shining and God should be kept, since they're the main mecha of G Gundam, much like how Impulse and Destiny are for SEED Destiny. This isn't a UC only project. Yzak Jule 07:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I include Impulse and Destiny is due to the fact they are protagonist suit from GSD, whether you like it or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 09:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

By that logic though, then a lot of other suits need to be kept. GP01 to 3, NT-1 Alex, RX-79s. Turn A. etc. Main ones from X too. I don't really mind though, I like these suits. Shrumster 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality over quantity?

This is the biggest challenge facing Wikipedia at the moment: we don't necessarily need more, we need better. This is definitely relevant here. In my very humble opinion the direction this WikiProject should take is one more focused on quality and less on quantity, both for the good of Wikipedia and for the good of Gundam coverage on Wikipedia. And for the good of Gundam.

This may sound rather insulting, but I feel that I should make the point that reading 1 high-quality FA on Gundam - quite possibly the Gundam article itself - is far more interesting and informative than slugging through a hundred pages of one sentence and the weapon specifications. I am more likely to be attracted to Gundam by that one FA that gives good detail and explains its importance and cultural significance than I am by 100 pages of cruft that no one external could possibly understand. Nothing wrong with having that at Wikia, of course.

IMO the project ought to focus on getting the core Gundam articles and lists to FA and FL. Perhaps Gundam and List of Military Units in Mobile Suit Gundam are good places to start? Best to all, Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...

RX-78 Gundam page will need to be disamb. We actually have something in the Real world named RX-78 GUNDAM, a personal computer released by Bandai July, 1983 is named as such. (And one game was release on it on September the same year.) I will be leaving the details out for now(due to bad connection), sourced from monthly magazine Maicon shounen(seondary source) and here quoting the magazine. MythSearcher^talk 14:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

More Shotgunning of Gundam articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moreschi

25 more today. Good faith is becoming harder to assume. Edward321 03:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It a bit frustrating how fast some of this is happening, but it is fairly clear which ones do need to go. I've been keeping up with the exporting of these articles so they can be imported to wikia:gundam (see how nicely we can make wiki to wiki links?). Personally, I would go about this differently, but so far Moreschi really has been only tagging the non-notable ones. It might not be the best way to go about this, but we are a wiki, and wikis are fast-changing by their very nature. It is hard to assume good faith, but this was a long time coming and has to be done one way or another. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

While some of his nominate has notable by plot (Qubeley or The O for example), I really can't find much of real world impact to save them. We also most likely has to trim down the detail in most articles anyway, so remove some less important make sense. L-Zwei 05:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For real-world impact, appearance in media outside of the Gundam series can be acceptable. With that in mind, model kits, magazine articles and appearances in games can be a life(article?)-saver. Super Robot Wars is a big help with the unrelated-game-tie-in. Shrumster 18:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no plans to nominate any more for quite while

Just so you know. Perhaps we could work on Gundam for FA? Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How about babysteps and get it to GA first? :P Kyaa the Catlord 08:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Up to you, but IMO GA is virtually worthless for longer articles. It works for shorter ones but with longer ones GA reviewers always find something to nitpick over. I think it's best to go straight to FAC. Just my thoughts, others may say differently. Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

True, I spent a long time trying to get Kashimashi GA status. Maybe I should nom it for FA and see if that works better. (Now there's a show I admit to being otaku over.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That one could do with a few more inline citations. Much as Gundam does, actually:) Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was really thinking Strawberry Panic!. Similar shows, but SP got more cites. :P Kashimashi is on the brain cause I just got the first 'tank' of the manga. Mmmm, Yasuna. Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checking Strawberry Panic over...it's good, but the only things are that it could do with just a few more cites, possibly the lead could be trimmed and the trimmed material moved to the main body of the article - the lead should only summarise the article, it shouldn't contain material that isn't referred to again, and I think that happens here - and the "Setting" thing is IMO too long. At any rate, it was the only bit of the article that I didn't actually enjoy reading. Perhaps move some of that to a subarticle? Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with SP and Kashimashi is that they've not really made it over the ocean yet. I'm a big fan of them, but yuri isn't omg!popular in the US, yet. This makes it hard to find material related to them I can source since its mainly in Japanese. But they're making their way over slowly, so maybe I'll be able to improve the cites soon. Its really too bad cause they are very cute romances. Kyaa the Catlord 10:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind you all that notability does not mean it must be notable in United States as Football (Soccer). Even in Asia is enough. ^^ 202.169.51.170 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We're aware of that, as has been discussed on the RX-78 AfD. We're doing housecleaning for the most part at this point. There are a large number of articles that aren't notable mechs or that are merely abandoned stubs. Kyaa the Catlord 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD?

Views on this article? --Larry laptop 18:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, takes ages to load, and.... 85 KBs.... Wow.... Can someone split out some, since not everyone has good connection. I also doesn't have always good connection. Anyway good work. Draconins 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Last time I looked at it it was 144kb, I guess someone deleted something already. MythSearcher^talk 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Great job merging the suits into an article easier to defend from AfD than individual pages. However, the term "Early Earth Federation" kinda gives it an in-universe perspective (since it references the universe's timeline), going against WP:WAF. How about just Federation Mobile Suits in the Gundam Universe (Universal Century)? Might need to split the article across several pages...averaging around 40-60kb a page should be ok for formatting. See my post below for suggestions on improving coverage of individual suits. Shrumster 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Major Changes to Existing Mobile Suit Page

ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam

Well, I have tried to improve ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam in my current spare time, however since it is major (and probably highly controversial) changes, I decide to make it to my userspace first, see User:Draconins/ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam. I do major rewrite and try to conform known policies. Please see it, your suggestions and improvements always welcome. Hopefully, it may become featured article to show to the deletionists. (^^) Draconins 12:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a billion trillion zillion times better than the rubbish that's there now. I recommend you move your userspace version into the mainspace right away - WP:BOLD. Good work, bravo! Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to, but I want to be careful, as my experience here show that many fan of the series is "fanatically" linked to Kira fan versus Shinn fan. If they fall to some debate, some of them may ... well you know....-_-; I should wait at least a day (that also part of WP:BOLD). I do like Kira because of my background, and since many would know this, I want to be careful enough, since I do not want my edit become topic of heated misplaced non-wikipedia debates which occurs in the past here (take a look on history of the Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, for example -_-# ). I usually want to be neutral (though it is okay to have some idol, right?), however in the past some Shinn fans also judging me, IMHO, false. I want to make sure that my article is "correct" enough for Kira's fan, not provoking Shinn's fan, and based of verifiable source not provoking anyone or can make them "shut their mouth". Actually, I would like to make a little revision later, if I have time, duh remind me of unfinished vessels page. FYK, this are why usually my major edits on gundam here were on vessels page, which are usually "forgotten" and far from useless debate. Cheers (^^) Draconins 13:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are not going to move the page to the SF page, I will do it for you. Frankly, it's time for Shinn fans to let go of that, and just treat this as a protagonist Gundam. If the director do want to make Shinn look real weak and Kira really strong, they can complain, but they can't change the fact that it's official. George Leung 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wish, please do so. That feels that I am not enforcing anyone to agree with me. ^^ Draconins 05:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry much, none of Shinn's fanboys really help us in this reconstruction ^^; So if anyone object it, tell him to discuss here (and they might realised this isn't time for fanboy moaning). L-Zwei 05:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody objects my rewrite for two days, so I moved it here. Have fun..^^ Draconins 12:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

MSZ-010 Double Zeta Gundam

I have done something to the MSZ-010 Double Zeta Gundam page. And yes, I am bold. However, my English is not as good as natives and someone with the ability please fix any grammar, spelling mistakes, typo, and/or strange wordings. If this format is acceptable, I will get back to working on RX-78 Gundam, MS-06 Zaku and MSZ-006 Zeta Gundam with the same format. Also, I suggest to move mobile suit pages to follow a more common naming convention, that is, exculding the numbering, use something like Gundam(RX-78)(Okay, this is the worse example), Zeta Gundam/Z Gundam, Zaku, ZZ Gundam. It look less crufty and probably most people new to the series is not going to search for MSZ-006 Zeta Gundam and will only go for Z Gundam.(currently redirects to the anime page, which to my amazement, I have never read before and figured it probably need some major revamp itself before the mobile suit pages.) MythSearcher^talk 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree on removing model number, I think RX-78 Gundam shall become Gundam (mobile suit). Also, it make more sense when we merge the relate articles into it. L-Zwei 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Approved and will make a backup on Gundam wikia. seems to be the best, anywayGeorge Leung 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just move RX-78 article to Gundam (mobile suit). Now I would like to known if I should merge FA Gundam to RX-78 article (which mean it would be trim down to two paragraph, one for FA Gundam and other for Heavy Gundam) as well? I mean, the notability is quite low for non-fan, IMO. If we truly want to keep it seperate (and harder to delete), the article should be expand to cover every full armor MS in UC at least. Also, I also think about trim down minor variations in Zeta and ZZ article. By minor I mean non-animate though Gundam Evolve part in Zeta article truly need some clean-up (though I won't touch it for lack of knowledge). L-Zwei 13:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just trimmed-down info on Zeta Gundam variants. Now I have other question, shall we adopt gallery style from Virtuaroid article? I'm pretty sure it would look better. L-Zwei 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I know, this seems to be a good alternative. Looks good, and this way the spec will not seem out of place(especially good for the G and W series spec). The FA Gundam should be merged, the FA-78-3 was already in the RX-78 until the delete of the list on that page. It is easier to maintain that way. FA Zeta and FAZZ are all kept in coresponding Zeta and ZZ pages, so I guess merging is better. MythSearcher^talk 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam

Now , I tried to rewrite ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam. As it is far from finished and various reasons, I currently only make draft on my subpage User:Draconins/ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam by copy-edit current main article, adding some cultural impacts, and borrowing many of my edit's wordings of ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam. You may make suggestions.... For you know this version is far from finished and its complete form may far from current version. I really need to rewatch the Gundam SEED again as I now forgot which episodes some event happens. Draconins 13:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, much better than the stuff that's currently in the mainspace. I recommend you move that into the mainspace ASAP. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, current revision in User:Draconins/ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam have been much improved. The remainders to be worked out excessively are Characteristics and Features Section and In Service Section. Feel free to see and give comment to this. Draconins 10:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Original Freedom spec needed

I recalled that Freedom Gundam was originally designed as a simple merge of Aile, Sword, and Buster launcher pack; however, it was redesign sicne the original design is too cluttered. Does anyone know the source for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 02:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I have not heard of that, and it is not mentioned in the MG manual and mechanical file, so it sounds like OR. The Destiny, :however, was designed to incoperate Impulse's 3 main system all on one suit, this is said in data files. MythSearcher^talk 05:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Once saw the lineart of original Freedom when MAHQ still use ezboard forum, but that's all and they never include that lineart on the site neither. I can't even confirm if it was real info or just fan-speculation. L-Zwei 06:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we do not have concret information, we will, for now, assume that Freedom is the original design, and only mention about the "failure to combine aile, sword, launcher pack" for destiny, as THAT is more or less confirmed. Still, I am certain that such OR is partially correct. George Leung 09:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I once read in old edition Japanese Newtype that Freedom, Destiny is merge concept of capabilities of those pack which always active. I do not remember when, I really forgot which one it is (too much time passed), I am sure it is after it is before SEED destiny aired. It is supposed that Freedom and Destiny designed for SEED with related concept, though I am not sure about it too, not to mention my capabilities for reading kanjis is far from good. Draconins 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okawara himself said it, Gunota should have the interview. Fukuda's original wish was an MS which combined the Striker packs. Okawara felt it was cluttered and convinced him to use an MS with a focus on firepower, the Freedom. Second time around Fukuda got it his way.--HellCat86 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BAKUC, as real world impact

Well after browsing [28] for a while, I found The Bandai Action Kits Universal Cup Information Page. You may need it for referencing one real-world impact. I have added relevant informations in ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam‎. Never thought it would be there because, previously I only see the winners on modelling magazine. You may ask who is 2006 winners, well, since the competition is on the end of year, we will expect winners' list this year. Cheers. Draconins 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is rather new, the competition was held on December, 2006, it was BAKAC(Bandai Action Kits Asia Cup), however, this year there is a Italy team entering, and thus the name of the competition was changed. (sourced from Dengeki Hobby Feb, 2007 issue. And yes, the winners' list is on the same issue.) MythSearcher^talk 04:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stargazer tag

This tag in Stargazer discussion page : {{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=Start}}

Should it be removed? It seems like Stargazer seris ended already so no more information can surface.

OhanaUnited 14:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Start in the tag means the article does not provide enough information to reflect the object in question(beginner level article), not meaning the series have just started or anything. This means people with the knowledge and sources to improve the article should improve it to a better article, that's all. MythSearcher^talk 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going to give up...

Not that i provide much help anyway. But see history page of YMS-15 Gyan, they redirect it per AfD without notice on article!' (I'm not sure even if the AfD exist at all). Isn't that violate rule for AfD nom? Really, this made me feel like being a criminal here and they have right to beat us freely. L-Zwei 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you're taking the AfDs and redirects personally. Don't take it personally and don't stress about it. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah...see that it's redirected per FICT. At least it's straight and truly make sense. I just hate it if thing be deleted by fault reason. Sorry, for take thing in extreme sentimental way, but I have right to feel frustrated too, no? Don't worry, I'm nowhere low enough to go and vandal random article ^_^. Just need to rest a while. L-Zwei 05:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Guys, losing articles left-and-right here. What needs to be done is that somebody needs to create a template for mobile suits that fits WP:WAF. Specifically, from a real-world perspective and then integrate the background information. Honestly, a lot of the suits can be saved into lists, such as List of mecha in Mobile Suit Gundam, List of mecha in Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam, List of mecha in Mobile Suit Gundam Double Zeta, and so on and so forth. Usually, we can prove notability for many of the suits by their appearances as toys & model kits, being featured in modeling articles and the like, and appearances outside their own series (such as the Super Robot Wars series.

I'm thinking, each suit could have an initial blurb describing it as a fictional suit from XXX series in the XX gundam universe. Succeeding sections could be Appearances in Anime detailing where and under what situations the suit was encountered, and maybe its significance to the plot if applicable, Appearances Outside of Anime could describe the model kits, the games, magazine articles, etc. After those can be added a section named Background Information which can include in-universe information in subsections History, Armaments, Specifications, etc.

I've noticed a seeming crusade against Gundam articles here on WP and I want to do what I can to thwart it. But I don't really have the time to clean up the suits' articles, so I hope you guys get to clean them up before they all get AfD'ed. Hope this helps. Shrumster 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, not exactly what I am doing, but take a look at Z Gundam (still working on) and ZZ Gundam, and have some input on those formats. MythSearcher^talk 03:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job. The articles are a bit overbearing though and could probably be trimmed. Most of the minor stuff could be moved to Wikia. To play by WP's rules, you probably have to cite stuff like "In episode XX of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam, YY happened" or stuff like that instead of just mentioning in-universe stuff like "During the Gryps war, the Zeta played a major role in XX battle", etc. Shrumster 12:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unit Specifications

Guys, a lot (all?) of the articles could do without the detailed specs, which I suspect is what is acting like a beacon to all the anti-Gundam crusaders out there. Let's tone the specs down and move them to Wikia. Shrumster 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikia Export

Don't forget the pics. We need the pics over at Wikia. Shrumster 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems most of the Cosmic Era mobile suit images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosmic_Era_images are going to be deleted on February 9, 2007, because they're orphaned/not used in any articles. Silver Edge 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gundam X MS pages/Tallgeese

I randomly stumbled across a prod on the Esperanza (Gundam X) page. I gave it a look over, as well some of the other pages in the infobox at the bottom, and even though I'm a fan of the series, it just seems like too many pages on subjects that just aren't that notable; as much as I like the series, it's not very popular. So I've removed the prod and said I would bring a request for merging the page.

I'd like to help out, but I don't really know where to begin. I've only merged a stub once and it's been a few years since I saw the series, so I'm not sure I could add much outside of adding citations from MAHQ or gundamofficial or what have you. I'm willing to help out, though. Tiakalla 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tallgeese up for AfD as well. Just letting y'all know.Tiakalla 06:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest making a Mecha in Mobile New Century Gundam X page and dumping every single Gundam X suit there. That'll make it easier to clean up. I chose the word "mecha" over "mobile suits" so you can also add in vehicles/battleships/etc. Also, the actual name of the show should be used (I assume it's that one?). I'm currently in the process of planning a Mecha in Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team (it's my favorite series) page as a starter for our WP:WAF cleanup of Gundam articles. Might also go for Mecha in Mobile Suit Gundam F91 and Mecha in Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket. Starting with the short series, so there isn't a huge amount of suits to deal with. (I wonder how big the Zeta page will be... :) ) Shrumster 20:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to my choice of name for the subpages? I'm a bit confused about how I deal with the suits that appear in more than one series though, but I'll probably have the main article in the series where the suit first appeared? Shrumster 16:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. :) I'll go ahead and do a dump then on GX, probably tonight. It occurs to me that also having them all in one place allows for adding in content applicable to all, such as their use in the series (as I recall, contrary to UC, most of them are used by civilians, not military groups) and their design/designers if I can find any good sourcing on that. As for the name, I usually see it as 'After War Gundam X', but Mobile New Century is a direct translation of the Japanese, so I'll stick with that. There's already a After War Mobile Units page, why not use that?

The only suit I think might be worth leaving out of the merge is the title suit, so I'll leave that be for now. Does anyone have any good sources for referecing the episodes? Tiakalla 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So, how do we deal with the suits that appear in multiple series? Do we just reference them from the original series in which they appeared in? Shrumster 08:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably add them to th original series's page, yeah, and link on the other pages. Tiakalla 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Guys, I just found a reference that may help in future debates about Gundam's notability.

• Gilson, Mark (1998). "A Brief History of Japanese Robophilia". Leonardo. 31 (5). Sixth Annual New York Digital Salon: 367–369. doi:10.2307/1576597. Retrieved 2007-02-05.

Gundam (the original series) is mentioned.

Shrumster 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Found another one. I'll just add here so that anyone who needs to reference the articles can easily copy-paste the templates.

• Tetsuya, Ozaki. "The Power of the Gundam Exhibition". Out of Tokyo #118. REALTOKYO. Retrieved 2007-02-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Oh, and if we ever need to cite the official site, here it is.

• "Main Page". GundamOfficial.com. Bandai America Inc. Retrieved 2007-02-05.

Shrumster 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever said that the whole Gundam concept is non-notable, it's just those pesky weapons. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. :) I've encountered quite a lot of people who don't believe that stuff like this aren't important to non-fans because they're "just a robot cartoon". Shrumster 13:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What you and other "deletionists" fail to understand is the nature of the Gundam franchise. The "pesky weapons" are elevated to a status near that of characters; the bewildering array of merchandise based off of the more popular ones, and the model kits and resin figures of the intermediate variety, should be testament enough to that. The Wiki litmus test for "notability" is, in this situation, not serving the community as well as it should, giving the rather unique circumstances of this scenario. I keep trying to mention this, and it keeps falling on deaf ears. MalikCarr 03:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm an inclusionist. Shrumster 08:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. That was targeted at Moreschi. My apologies. MalikCarr 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, I've dug up some relevant sources and references to contest the AfD of this article, owing to it being "unsourced fancruft" as the deletion critera, and would appreciate a few keep votes. Despite what they say with "AfDs are not a vote" that's typically how it comes down, no matter how well the dissenting minority clarifies the problems originally raised with the AfD. Please note that this only applies to the Dijeh and Hi-Zack articles; those Gundam X mecha are effectively boned since they really don't have much (or practically anything, to be honest) in the way of notability outside the series they appeared in. MalikCarr 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Need some help please

I realize people are focused on the Gundam vehicles pages, but a dispute has come up on one of the character pages, and I'm hoping to get some neutral third party input.

I first encountered user Freedom Justice whem they made a pair of nonsensical edits on 1/23 to the template info of the Cagalli Yula Athha page. [29][30]. To me this looked like the typical driveby fan promoting their favorite matches and I reverted it.

The same editor did something similar to the Lacus Clyne page [31], which was sourced (albeit poorly) in the article itself, so I also reverted that, and briefly explained why. Three days later an anonymous user duplicated Freedom Justice's edit and removed the sourcing in the body of the article.[32] When I reverted that, Freedom Justice repeated the deletion, changing the source to say something else.[33]

I should requested other people to comment at that time, but instead I continued to revert what I saw fan-favoritism vandalism. Anonymous editors repeated the previous anonymous edit on 1/27 [34] and 1/28 [35] and 1/30 [36].

At this point their comments claimed the drama CD said something completely different than the article had originally said and chastised me for changing the article without any proof. (I believe the pot and kettle analogy fits rather well.) Since I had no proof either way, I stated that I believed poster of the old version was more credible than Freedom Justice. [37]

Freedom Justice again posted what I saw as opinion, not fact on 1/31 [38] as did an anonymous poster [39] Freedom Justice on 2/2 [40] and 2/3 [41] and again on 2/3 [42].

In the second to last Freedom Justice complained about my not giving reasons (though I had in several previous reverts). In the last he engaged in personal insults towards myself.

Now possibly Freedom Justice is right, but they haven't acted in a way that I find credible. I should have asked for outside help much sooner, but I'm hoping someone else will be willing to step in and help with this whole sorry mess. [43]. Edward321 03:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This should fix part of the problem. That part of the infobox really wasn't important, and is just a magnet for these kinds of fan arguments and speculations (WP:OR, etc). As for the edits outside of the infobox, this is just speculation of my own, but when people start to cite a "drama CD" that no one has heard of before.. it's usually bull :) -- Ned Scott 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the detail, but I asked one of my friend who has such CD, he stated that the drama CD referred may be the 8th GSD CD. He will check it for me later to make sure, though may be someone needed to confirm it. Draconins 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I and my friend have not found anything related in the 8th CD, the drama is about Lacus who try to sing the same way as Meer helped by Andrew Waltfeld, I and my friend will continue to 3rd GS CD. Draconins 06:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, that I have heard the 3rd CD, I am sure the one thing refered to is the 3rd Suit CD. Okay this cd has a track with a title "Haro". It takes story during Athrun's visit to Lacus's house. There, Athrun thinks that Lacus is pretty, Lacus even talk about what will their children become which make Athrun panic. Later, Athrun also fixed some kind of machinary and build Haro for Lacus. They also talk many more. So I guess this is kind of first love. Anyone can put this to deal with the fan-matching? I want to provide the track, if only it is not illegal, sigh... =_= Draconins 05:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ned. While I found the line useful shorthand, it is such a target for driveby fan-favoritism that we're better off without it. Such people usually don't delve into article itself. Edward321 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:GUNDAM members may have votes ignored

Section title says it all. Admin Blnguyen has argued, in closing this AfD, that votes from WP:GUNDAM members, or alleged members (as if this has become a crime now...) may be discounted from AfD debates. I am presently attempting to have this precedent overturned because it is DANGEROUS. Would -you- like a say in whether or not an article written by this project should be deleted, or should outsiders only be allowed to vote for that? I am not a member of this project, but I can see an injustice as big as this one for miles. MalikCarr 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried. The current "concensus" is that nothing I have cited in any of these articles is a "reliable source," including but not limited to Entertainment Bibles, model kit listings and Bandai America's Gundam website. With this in mind, nothing Gundam-related beyond the most general things (such as the RX-78, if you remember that fiasco) are "sourced" on Wikipedia, no matter what might be claimed. This was the brass ring, gentlemen, and it is a failure. MalikCarr 12:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gundam X mecha pages/possible source/archive?

Okay, I went through all the Gundam X mecha pages to see what all needs to be done. And, uh...wow. This is going to take a lot longer than I thought. What with the cleanup needed and all the redundant links and redirect pages, I think it might not be worth fighting any AfDs over these pages and just start fresh instead. I've gone ahead and copypasted all the current info on their pages into an offline file to work on (which I could put on a user subpage or upload to my own site if anyone else wanted to work on it), so nothing will be lost (save some uploaded images, which can be reuploaded easily and I think is probably not worth it except for the essential mecha of the series).

I have to confess that it's been at least three years, probably more, since I saw this series, so there really isn't much I know about these suits. So I'm going to need a little help. There's also a few questions I'm wondering about....

1. Does anyone have any good resources for summaries of the series episodes? Does gundamofficial have those? Not only would it help refresh my memory, it'll dispel OR claims.
2. A few pages got AfD'd before I did the mad copypasting: Bertigo, Dautap, Daughseat, Crouda, Febral, Estardoth, and Pyron. Any sources for these besides what I would find on gundamofficial and MAHQ?
3. Satyricon. Has the name of this organization been actually romanized that way in any official publications? I recall seeing it as 'Satellicon' in fansub, which makes a bit more sense as I don't recall any saytr references in GX. If nothing's found, I would suggest romanizing it directly as 'Saterikon'.
4. In order to help add real-world signifigance to the mecha article, I was thinking of adding in a short part on the designers: any possible influences and so on. Any good sources for this?
5. I have some ability to translate Japanese (although I'm terribly slow); are there any pages on the japanese wiki that would be worth translating?
6. (uh wow this list got long) The model lines count as real-world meaning and should be included, right? Anyone got a good list? I only know the three main suits (GX, Leopard and Airmaster) and their variants got 1/100 and 1/144s and that Double X, Leopard Destroy and Airmaster Burst got SD treatment as well. Didn't something in the GX line get a bigger model?

Okay, onto the next part. I haven't gone to check the pages yet, but is anyone using Mark Simmons's essays (from the Del Rey print of the Seed manga) as sourcing? Would anyone like a copy? I've got the ones in 3 and 4 (and possibly 1/2; it's a two-in-one book, so I'm not sure if the essays were included).

Finally, Wiki is yelling at me about the size of this page; should someone make a talk page archive? (I am a n00b, I do not know how. :( ) Tiakalla 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Gundam X articles were indeed a mess; you'll note I was not arguing for salvaging the GX articles in this latest AfD boondoggle. Gundam X hasn't gotten much exposure in the United States, and contrary to Wikipedia's stated goals of maintaining a "worldwide view" of things, this is a huge hinderance to articles of such topics. Anyway, the three title Gundams, as well as the Frost Brothers' Ashtaron and Virsago Gundams all had 1/144th scale models made of them, as well as their subsequent upgrades (e.g. the X-Divider and Double X). I believe X, Airmaster, Leopard, and Double X recieved High Grade 1/100 scale kits, but I do not know about the others. You may wish to check Hobby Link Japan's shop pages for them. With regards to Mark Simmons' essays, I wouldn't hold them in much regard. The deletionists will discount anything that isn't a "published, reliable, third-party source" when it suits their purposes. You can observe this fiasco of deletionism in the AfD I have linked above. MalikCarr 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They are published (admittedly within the manga itself, but I thought that original sources were okay for fictional subjects. Although I suppose it's not the "original" source, as the essays weren't part of the original Japanese publication.). As for reliable, he's an employee of Bandai as I recall; ANN says he's done script work on several Gundam series, and these particular essays are published within the manga itself. FWIW, his site has a few more. I seriously don't see how a deletionist could discount them as unreliable. Hm, I should have thought of HLJ; guess I've been out of the fandom longer than I thought >_>;; Tiakalla 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and he wrote "Gundam: The Official Guide", which I imagine says a lot in itself. Tiakalla 06:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See my above post about that AfD. All of those are not considered "reliable sources" by the deletionists. MalikCarr 12:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-notability in US is not important if it is notable enough in other part of the world. Many deletionist seems to forget about this. Another problem is that to see the notability many should understand other languages in Asian, at least Japanese (the series' language), Korean (where Gundam even coined as legal term), and Chinese (many non-original toys come from China). Additional knowledge of southeast-asian language may help too. Draconins 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is no use, as I have said, some deletionist are just too fond of their own world, and regard anything out of it as not notable. Some even say that anime magazines are not reliable sources of anime. Disregard them, they can live in their world happily ever after, it is none of our concern. Reliable source by wiki's definition should only need a primary source when describing something fictional, and a published secondary source. Most modeled mecha is very easy to have secondary sources, Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby have tons of modeling example that quote the original primary sources. However, I assume what they want are inline citations, quoting page numbers and section titles of the sources, date of publish and such. This is what we are missing in most of the pages, and instead we do have a lot of badly written page without any real sources and only fan written statements. On the other hand of this massive AfDs that had occured, I would be apprciated that they have just provided a very good means of getting my hands on a source search and they will regret what they have done later. A wiki article does not have to be well written, but needs to be sourced and notable(i.e. with secondary source) is what they want. Well, from my source search, we can have a seperate article for "every single mecha" that shows up on a "different issue" of "any" model magazine, as long as the model magazine is quoting the primary source. Meaning we can have tons of "stub" class articles with virtually only official data(sourced from both official means and model magazines or anime magazines) and still can claim its notablity. Of course this is not what we want, and we should only keep Lists of each series for now. MythSearcher^talk 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, perhaps you were not reviewing the Dijeh/Hi-Zack AfD. DENGENKI HOBBY WAS CITED and brushed off as either (A) not a source at all, or (B) not a "reliable source." Honestly, if they applied this hogwash about "multiple publised reliable third-party sources" anywhere else in Wikipedia, 70-90% of its articles would fail. Perhaps more. Oh, and don't forget that anyone who edits an article being nominated for deletion has no say in the matter either. MalikCarr 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I have cited the following in these deletion debates as sources, and, according to the deletionist camp, they are "not reliable": 1. MS Encyclopedia, 2. Model Graphix, 3. Dengenki Hobby, 4. Super Robot Wars, 5. HLJ, Hobby Search, etc, for model kit listings, 6. Gundam Perfect Web, 7. Bandai America's GundamOfficial.com, and 8. UltimateMark.com and Gundam: The Official Guide. According to the current discussion (read: lynching), none of these are reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It is my belief that there has been a systematic effort to make Gundam "unsourceable" by Wikipedia's standards. Even that appearance of the Mk. II on the Conan O'Brien show is considered to be "pointless trivia" by this crowd. I am convinced that this fight is unwinnable unless we resort to the tactics the Star Wars fans use, e.g. bombard AfD pages with meaningless votes. Sorta like what the deletionists do, actually... MalikCarr 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Malik, I like your enthusiasm for this, but I think you're taking this just a bit too personally. I think it might better benefit things to let the manner drop for now. If there's evidence of further anti-WP:GUNDAM bias where it's not warranted, it would probably make a stronger case.

To me, it looks like the closing admin chose a poor choice of words, to be sure, but that the intent was not to exclude people based on project, but rather those interested in keeping the page regardless of WP policies. (Not that I'm saying y'all were like that, mind.) I didn't see the article myself, so I don't know about sourcing or lack thereof, but I do think the argument is slightly better on the delete side, and that the keeps do sound a bit like ILIKEIT. Going by WP:FICT, those articles need merged anyway. (I wasn't involved in the AfD and can't check the page in question, so I've abstained from the deletion review.)

I don't think this is going to cause problems for reliable sourcing in the future; to me, it sounds like the issue with "reliable" sourcing is that they don't establish notability (which they don't, really, except perhaps SRW.) And most of the articles ARE going to fail notability checks, because a lot of these suits as individuals just aren't important even in the context of the shows themselves, which is why I've been working on merging in line with WP:FICT. Honestly, as hard as some fan worked to make all those pages and infoboxes, I don't think they did Wikipedia or the project any favors. :/

The only concrete evidence of anti WP:Gundam bias I can source, right now, is from --Elaragirl^Talk|Count, who has participated in just about every Gundam AfD so far, and also endorses Moreschi's administrative nomination, has gone on record saying that the project should be dissassembled. At any rate, the fact that links to the Gundam Wiki have been removed as "linkspam" from some relevant articles further inclines me to believe there is some kind of institutionalized effort at foot here. MalikCarr 03:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Elaragirl is a declared deletionist according to her userpage; given that these all went in about the same time, it's not surprising that she would have commented on all of them. And one person doesn't make a bias (see also: WP:CABAL). On the link removals, I haven't seen the removals in question, so I can't make a judgement on that.

I do think that you're letting this get to you a bit too personally, to the point where you've been giving out personal attacks. While I do think you have some basis for being annoyed or even angry, it's not productive to those articles or this project, and it makes it harder to take your opinion seriously. So take a deep breath, and chill a bit. :) All that energy is better spent bringing these articles up to WP standards. Tiakalla 03:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought that as well, until I brought up a pair of AfD articles to standards and addressed concerns raised by the nominator, and they were deleted anyway, simultaneously establishing a dangerous precedent that affects all editors whose articles are facing deletion. This was an epiphany to me that deletionists cannot be reasoned with, and once they have targeted an article for deletion, they will fight tooth and nail to see it burn. So yes, I respectfully disagree that my energy would be better spent elsewhere. As Burke (allegedly) said, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" or some variation thereof. I'd like to think I'm at least doing -something-. MalikCarr 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you seriously are taking this too personally, as it was your work that was deleted. Again, I didn't see the articles in question, but (assuming you have them saved; if not, I think you can ask an admin to help you retrieve the contents) if you'd like to recreate them on a userpage or send it to me by email or whatnot, I'll take a look at it and see if it can meet notability standards. With my passing taste of UC, the names don't ring any bells at all, so I'm not sure they could stand on their own. But, you've mentioned SRW and Amuro Ray piloting the one, so maybe it can. Tiakalla 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All the articles nominated were crap at the time the AfD was created. I believe the Dijeh and Hi-Zack had some real-world notability, so I went out to systematically rectify the concerns set up by the AfD's nominator, thinking that those who partook in it could be reasonable. The quality of the article's contents itself was not being debated; indeed, I was going to blank the whole thing and rewrite it once the AfD was over. What was being debated was that (A) the article was unsourced, (B) the item in question was non-notable, and (C) it was "fancruft." I sourced the article (these were dismissed as being unreliable), I provided evidence of notability (these were ignored or discounted), and regardless of "cruft"'s status as an essay, not policy, had pledged to deep six the parts of it that could not be sourced directly (e.g. "but because the Karaba had little resources the Dijeh used many existing weapons"). Trying to have a rational, reasonable discussion with a deletionist is like trying to convince an alligator to stop eating your legs. MalikCarr 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And most likely, the delete votes being counted were from when they were crap; you didn't really draw enough attention to the revisions, I think, for people to know to take another look. But what's done is done; as I see it, the choices are as follows: 1. bring the article up to snuff in userspace or off Wikipedia and recreate it when it's done, 2. conclude that it can't pass WP:FICT on its own and merge it into a relevant list of mecha article, or 3. complain about how the deletionists have wronged the project and get nothing done. I've offered to give you a hand, but if you'd rather look for the cabal, then I should be working on the Gundam X mecha pages. Tiakalla 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:N, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan is 2 independent magazine published by 2 different companies not under or funded by Bandai or any related companies. They make their own money and produces their own goods(other than Gundam related stuff). How reliatble they are? well, Hobby Japan's first published magazine is before the First Gundam anime(1969), and mainly focuses on military and real life models even in latest releases. The Hobby Japan company also publishes Arms Japan and Game Japan, which is not Gundam related.[44] Dengeki Hobby is from the company Media works, they publish some Gundam related books but mainly publishes magazines and all forms of books, with 9 magazines published each month, Dengeki Hobby does not even uses Gundam mecha as their cover every time. (Mar, 2007 uses NGE instead)2. If they do not take these as reliable and notable sources, then I have no idea how anything can be reliable. (Maybe they cannot read it and thus it is unreliable?) Any how, remember to place them into the articles as inline citations quoting page number and issue date, we do our job, let them do theirs, the project is not going to get dissembled any time soon, whoever even mentioned saying it should be is just being unreasonable and making themselves look bad. MythSearcher^talk 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the gist of the argument offered; "a magazine about toys is not reliable" and some have gone insofar as to say that, because these items are Japanese, they are unverifiable as well. What happened to that whole "conform to a worldwide view" thing they keep trumpeting? MalikCarr 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in addition to MythSearcher saying, there are lots of local anime and hobby magazines in East and Sourthern Asia which are independents from Bandai. Draconins 06:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that that's independant. Notable, I'm not quite sure on, but it's a printed and (non-self) published work, although HJ's long history says something. I don't know what in particular was being referenced, so I can't say for sure on that. I didn't see any mention of it on the AfD though; clarification there would have made a stronger case, methinks. Given proper background like this, I don't see why they would fail WP:RS in another AfD.Tiakalla 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding notability

There seems to be an issue involving a number of Gundam articles and Articles For Deletion.

WP:N defines notability as follows:

"If it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic.

Notable here means "worthy of being noted"[1][2] or "attracting notice"[3]. It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness". "

A subnote to this is : "Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.".

Wikipedia:Independent sources is an essay, Notability and Reliable Sources are guidelines. The relevant portions of WP:RS says this about primary sources:

"Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reputable publisher, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources."

I'm aware these aren't firm policy, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people kill whatever doesn't meet them. With that out of the way, the problem with many Gundam articles is as follows:

1. An article is created by an anon, and is nothing more than stats and a blurb.
2. WP:GUNDAM expands the article out to a full length article. No sources are included. Where these stats come from isn't ever said. (I'm presuming from books...somewhere.)
3. A wild-eyed, drooling deletionist, fresh from assaulting our other favorite kickball, Star Trek articles, comes by and sees this. With insane screams of "Cruft" they spit forth 549 AfD's.
4. There is an attempt (understandibly hurried) to get some kind of sourcing in the article before it's deleted.
5. Deletionist Wikideathsquad arrives en masse, votes 45939 times with our army of sockpuppets, article is slain.

I'm engaging in a bit of gentle sarcasm and hyperbole above but you get the idea. The problem is, I think, how we interpret WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:OR. It is all well and good to link to an Amazon.com listing of some book and say "This is the source I got this information from." But what information?

I am here to fix your conundrum of dealing with us evil deletionist nutjobbers. :)

How to defend yourself against "no cited sources"

It is helpful if you set your cites properly. For example:

<ref name="GundamRef1">Book name, by Book Author. Date Published. ISBN or ISBX Code.</ref> Put this after the claim made. For example, if you see have a set of stats, put this at the end of the stat block. If you claim the Gundam was piloted by a person, put this ref at the end of that (and obviously replace my filler with the right book.)

How to defend against lack of notability

Notability depends on both subjective notability and mainstream notability. I'll be the first one to admit I didn't do my homework on the RX-78 AfD, and boy do I feel fucking stupid. That is a good example of how articles should be sourced.

There is plenty of subjective and mainstream notability. However, the sourcing you use to establish this cannot be suspect. GundamOfficial.com is not reliable in this regard. It has the most accurate information, perhaps, but it's also tightly tied to the subject at hand.

This source below: The Science of Anime: Mecha-Noids and AI-Super-Bots By Lois H. Gresh, Robert E. Weinberg. Published 2005 Thunder's Mouth Press. ISBN 1560257687

Has a 40 page section on Gundam and most of the culture. Another one.

1. Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation By Susan Jolliffe Napier. Published 2001 Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312238630. Mentions several mecha and their histories and influence by name.

Reliable Sourcing

The best reliable sources have no direct connections at all to the subject. Don't rely on companies like HobbyJapan and Dengeki for your notability, since they only work on things of this nature. Find mainstream news stories, or mentions in books or collections like the two above. There is a critical difference between "independant entities" and independant sourcing.

If you must rely on things like HobbyJapan clearly cite AND list out what the source says. If you use a model kit, then point that out in the article. "These stats taken from model kit number XX33-xY, at thislink.com" or whatever.

The best thing to do, of course, is as a Wikiproject, make up some kind of template to put on the article that says "This article is in the process of being sourced. Please don't be a cad and delete it".

Other things:

• Once things are properly sourced, you COULD expand the articles from those sources since you referred to them. (I'm assuming good faith that you have the sources listed. If you need excerpts from the two books above, I can provide them.) The addition of such information is how many Pokemon articles got to FA.
• Try to minimize the number of armor suits that you can't source reliably. If you must, put several on one page and have at least a couple of solid sources for the page. It's better to do it that way than make multiple articles, because they'll just get deleted.
• If a page goes to AfD make a copy in your user space when it does. There isn't any problem with this sort of thing if you are working on sourcing it.
• WP:Pokemon and (grimaces) the Star Wars Wikipeoples probably have guidance about tricks of sourcing from primary sources and finding good secondary sources.

I assume some people here will accept this advice in the spirit in which it was offered. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Don't rely on companies like HobbyJapan and Dengeki for your notability, since they only work on things of this nature." Irrational reasoning. If this was truly a criteria, we couldn't look at scientific journals about meteorology for articles on weather related topics because they focus solely on weather issues. This is amazingly faulty logic. The place to look for information on specialized topics is precisely places like HobbylinkJapan, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous, these are truly reliable and verifiable sources. Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If a large majority of Wikipedians disagree, which seems to be the case since those sources haven't prevented the articles from being deleted, then what is the point. I'm not saying don't use them. I'm saying don't depend on them to establish notability. It would seem to me that you would want to use approaches that work and that end up in producing quality articles that don't get nominated for deletion. And I disagree -- I look at scientific journals for information on meteriology rather than meteorological almanacs to determine notability, even though the latter is where I would find hard data and specialied information. Just my thoughts, given in the interest of helping. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 08:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that people seem to think notability is subjective. It is not. There is no subjectivity in the notability guidelines, if we show a number of independent, reliable sources commenting on these topics we have met the requirements. Period. There is no room for argument in the notability guidelines. A topic is either notable or it is not, regardless of attempts to sweep our sources under the rug. Kyaa the Catlord 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that defining independant reliable sources is a major issue, and most people, you must admit, don't see those sources as indpendant. Since WP runs by consensus, if the consensus is the sources aren't reliable, will you suggest it's better for the articles to be deleted than to try to do things in a manner that keeps them around? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 08:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In cases like that, I give up. Sometimes it is better to throw your hands up when you're faced with a consensus that is obviously incorrect. I've pretty much stopped editting Gundam articles due to these AfDs which, in my view, show more of the ignorance of the topic by the majority of those involved in the AfD debates than any real policy issues. Wikipedia is supposed to strive to avoid a western worldview, but based on the history of Gundam-related AfDs this is not the case in practice. Kyaa the Catlord 08:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And Elaragirl's argument do have problem. As Kyaa the Catlord said, lets' assume your argument is right, we couldn't look at scientific journals about meteorology for articles on weather related topics because they focus solely on weather issues. Even if we don't depend on them to establish notability, then we still can not depend on science journal for establish notability on some subject, lets say Roche Limit. =_=; I believe only a few mainstream source can explain notability of Roche Limit. Do not forget, there isn't any consensus yet about independant issue of the source and if you say most people, with good faith assumed, can I know who are you referring? I hate to repeat myself, please search for my argument in [RX-78 AfD]. Did you know story of American Civil War if you are not American? Most will not are or barely hear it. Richard H. Anderson? I also know most American does not care about Football (soccer), is that means Football (soccer) is not notable? Hell, no, ask most European men or Asian men. Do you know Roche limit? Now go to fiction side, anyone who never see Babylon 5 know Spoo?Draconins 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a shame. You can't change bias by simply telling people they are biased. You have to work within the limits and then slowly change things over time. It seems to me that you would like having articles on this series, so to me (and if I'm being wrong or stupid or naive you can tell me why) working to improve the articles to a point where everyone is happy is a good thing.--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 08:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that certain people are not interested in improving articles, they'd prefer to just delete. And, well, the Gundam articles are an easy target, but when similar problems are pointed out with similar western sci-fi articles, the problems are brushed aside. (For example, X-Wing and Starfury.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get me started on how fucked Star Wars is. If there is a way to improve the articles, they should be improved. Only if they can't should they be deleted. I actually reversed myself in a DRV for that reason, so I'm not being hypocritical here. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 09:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• grin* I just don't like the seeming double standard. Our articles are at least as well sourced as theirs, but we have to fight to keep ours when they are given an immediate pass. Kyaa the Catlord 09:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing Problems

Example of what I'm talking about.

GAT-X105 Strike Gundam.

In one part the following statement is made: "The GAT-X105 Strike is one of the most extensively modeled Cosmic Era mobile suits, with 24 model kits and 13 action figures. It has also appeared in many video games, including those of the Super Robot Wars franchise.".

I've just gone through and added tags to show how widespread the problem can be. And this article hasn't a source at all! Just a bunch of stuff from a website. Please fix. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 08:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am one of people here working on CE articles but it will be slow... We have life. See User:Draconins/ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam and ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam. I still did not touch the GAT-X105 Strike Gundam, and I expect the article will be wide because of it has lots of variants. However you claimed that article doesn't have any source? See the bottom references. It is part of source, though in academic article is not complete ones. Don't forget we may not just copy pasted from other site as it is copyright infringement. Well, anyway don't forget to add your sign. Draconins 08:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No it's not a copyvio, I'll take your word for that, but it could use some other sources. I know people have lives...and maybe, since I work on technical and scientific , or business articles where I usually have reference books at hand and facts are indisputable, I'm a bit biased. The articles you are working on should never be nominated for deletion unless someone is being .. mmm. Difficult. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 08:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't always copyvio but It may become. See text "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted" every time you edit an article, below save page button? Anyway as intermezzo, facts are indisputable? Are you sure ^^ ? I have worked on many scientific articles before, especially before I register to Wikipedia, and I even found many facts actually disputable and even said so by the "PDF", book or articles....(^^) Draconins 09:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)