Talk:Knightmare Frame

Missing Units

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toudou's Unit

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

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

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

Hold your horses...

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

Incomplete Guren Nishiki entry?

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

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

Tonfas in Knightmare Frames?

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Zero Burai.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CODEGEASS02.jpg

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

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

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

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

Gawain

The Gawain does not actually have Landspinners.

It uses the Float System to move around.

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

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

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

Lost Colors mechs?

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

New Mechs on R2 Website.

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

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

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

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

Zangetsu and Reorganisation.

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

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

Vincent - Guilford's Unit.

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

Knightmares put in order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images

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

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

fair use rational must be discussed individually for individual images.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question on Non GX-01 KMFs

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

Raikou's a weapon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fukushahadō to "radiation wave"

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

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

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

Marianne Lamperouge

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burai Kai -> Burai Custom?

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

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

Article needs a complete rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems and suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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