Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archives


Contents

[edit] The images

I've sent an email to Bandai asking if they care about people using images of MS on Wikipedia. Assuming they don't care, I will be expecting AMIB to restore every single deleted Gundam image that he tagged. Naturally, I would be supplying the email upon request. Jtrainor 23:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not how things work, though. It isn't sufficient to merely ask for permission; instead, the images need to be released under a free license, like the GFDL. If you want to ask for images to be released under the GFDL, you can try WP:RFP, but I wouldn't expect to have much luck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
If the company has given permission for them to be used, you really have no reason to remove them, as the reason to do so (avoiding potential lawsuits) does not exist.
Wikipedia rejects copyright licenses exclusively for use on Wikipedia, or exclusively for non-commercial usage (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Downstream use). Even if permission is given, depending on its scope and limitation, they may still need to be removed. --Kusunose

Though the lawsuit reasoning is stupid anyways as many sites have used Gundam images for years and none of them have been sued. Jtrainor 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sueing a fan website is very hard, the most you can do is stop them from using the images, but sueing wikipedia, you can be almost sure that you can get something out of it since wikipedia actually got some money. MythSearchertalk 03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
See, this is why I want to use Mr. Simmons' images whenever possible... they were created for the express purpose of avoiding copyright issues as much as possible, and ought to be a boon to Wikipedia's efforts to be as free as possible. Unless Bandai suddenly gives us free license to use their work, which I doubt, these are the best options available to us. Of course, certain people happen to believe that, being a "derivative" work, they're equally unfree to the originals, and that any claims otherwise are blockable offenses, but I digress. MalikCarr 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If Simmon agreed that the pictures could be used, then others can use it since it is released as public domain or whatever that law is called. The problem here is that wikipedia should have the most accurate source possible, images as well, so fan created pictures should not be used for that purpose if official images can be used. Although I doubt that we can actually get any reply from Bandai America, since on their website terms of use, they listed that they have no authority in authorizing anyone to use the contents in their website since the licenses are of the Bandai main company's other sub branch like Sunrise. MythSearchertalk 08:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not true. Fan-created pictures of copyrighted designs are derivative works. The fans don't wholly own the copyrights in order to release the images into the public domain or under a free license. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The work itself is released for secondary derivative in Japan, that is, anyone can draw their own Gundam, and release it. The company release that much right and this is why it could be used. Also, I am pretty sure that various official promotional art could be used anyway, we do not need to go into this too deep. MythSearchertalk 14:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
No no, please do go on. Anything we can get our hands on to quell the non-free image hysteria would be greatly beneficial to the cause. MalikCarr 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to have a better-informed opinion on the subject, before assuming that the copyright owned by Bandai or its subsidiaries doesn't apply. Additionally, most of these images are informally released under the premise that they cannot be used in commercial projects and that they won't be modified, which is insufficiently free for Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another idea for resolving the infobox dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallgeese has nifty collapsible infoboxes. I propose we just turn all infoboxes in Gundam articles into ones like that. This solves the space complaint handily. Jtrainor 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really solve the problem that the infobox is still all in-universe and copyvio, plus collapsable templates don't work very well in many browsers, don't work at all in printed versions, and mess up the page layout. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say if the information is very easily obtainable on official sources without any purchasing of goods(like info printed on top of the model boxes) we'll just place it in as some type of out-of-universe info. I can kinda reason the dimensions for now, it could be given to give people hints about how big the scale models are. MythSearchertalk

[edit] Striker Pack page moved

I just reorganised the Striker pack page since the page contains 2/3 of non-striker pack stuff and at least 1/3 of out of CE similarities. It is simply in-universe and fan speculation and OR in any sense if it is remained as the Striker Pack page. So I moved it and maybe will give it more attention in modifying it to a less in-universe style. If anyone got time in their hands, feel free to cut down the lengthy striker pack stuff that is just plot summary. I feel that this is a page that we might be able to keep because I have some sources saying these addons back packs makes it more realistic and was used in quite some stories of Gundam series, and seeing how they continuously designing these units for newer series, it is probably the second popular idea other than the transformation systems. MythSearchertalk 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Funkeymonk88

User:Funkeymonk88 [1] has created the articles Phase 1: Angry Eyes, Sword Impulse Gundam, Strike Dagger, and M1 Astrays.
This user copied the synopsis from [2] and pasted it into Phase 1: Angry Eyes. This article should be deleted per WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICTION, and WP:EPISODE.
He basically did the same thing in the three articles he created about the mobile suits, where the text and images in the articles are taken from MAHQ.net. (Sword Impulse Gundam [3], Strike Dagger [4], M1 Astrays [5].) --Silver Edge 09:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I redirect Strike Dagger and M1 to already exist articles. Weird enough, I think it would be better if I just copy content from exist articles and paste in new ones (just because I hate model number in article's name) then redirect old ones instead. But I don't want to encourage this guy to creat copyvio article. Speak of it, someone should nominate Sword Impulse article for delete for copyvio.

Off topic, but I remember someone mention about merge all three Astray Gundams and M1 into single srticle AGE ago... L-Zwei 16:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest requesting a move after things cool down a bit. This way, we can also keep the history on the new place. MythSearchertalk 16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Any time you see an article that is clearly a copyvio, place the {{db-copyvio|url}} at the top of the page replacing the url with the link to the original text. If the copyvio is just a section, then simply delete the section. --Farix (Talk) 12:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gundam is unreferenced

This project's flagship article Gundam has no references and this WikiProject not only endorses such an article but also is used to generate more unreferenced articles. I do not see how that is a Wikiproject to "collaborate on encyclopedic work" as stated at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like AMIB has started up again

I wish I could say I'm suprised, but after his repeated absolute refusal to compromise, I'm not. Jtrainor 12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this road goes both ways... AMIB might be unwilling to compromise, but you all are just as unwilling to budge. You and (to a much greater extent) MalikCarr act like you're the victims. You can't have it that way when you're resorting to schoolyard insults, i.e. "Never underestimate the ignorance of a deletionist." There is a serious failure to communicate in any way that doesn't devolve into petty name-calling on your side, even after other, more reasonable third parties pleaded for tact and etiquette here. So, having said that, maybe you guys need to at least try and be civil? Half of this talk page is a legacy to your total stubbornness clashing with his stubbornness, with nothing good coming of it.
Just my two cents. Maikeru 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I certainly didn't start this mess, AMIB did. And I've said nothing about deletionists. Jtrainor 20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You have not been as rash as Malik, no, and I'm sorry, I should have attributed that to him and not you, since he's been the one who's been going on about the vast deletionist cabal. But I dunno, I feel like there have been no real attempts at civility or compromise on either side, and this discussion page in particular is a sign of just how little has been accomplished by both AMIB and you guys. The fight on the Zeong, Jagd Doga, etc. pages seems to have been about, of all things, a couple of pieces of line art. You guys got yourselves blocked for 24 hours over an editing dispute related to a couple of images. I just find that nonsenscial.
And then, AMIB comes up with a new infobox idea which is rejected because... it doesn't show the height and weight of a Mobile Suit, nor does it have a laundry list of weapons? I can understand the height ... somewhat, just because it gives a sense of scale (is this bigger/smaller than the RX-78 Gundam?), but weight in particular is a totally arbitrary number, because rarely do Mobile Suits -- even in Universal Century -- display some sense of weight, and those that do are obviously extremely heavy. The annoying part of that is that AMIB's infobox includes relevant information that should be in the current infobox, but isn't, particularly what series first uses the design, and most importantly (IMO), who came up with the design in real life. Maikeru 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of height, the discussion above with MythSearcher kind of stalled. What did you think if height versus type (Mobile suit, mobile armor, etc.) for giving an impression of size? Height is more precise, but class adds a link to a helpful article and the actual side-by-size comparison isn't always consistent due to the many different artists working on different series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agreed on size and linking(although MAs really no real standard). I see no point in the weight spec, although some mentioning of the extremely unreasonable light weight after F91 anime to Crossbone, V, than crossing over to G, W, X could be mentioned, there is really no point in having each weight spec on the infobox. MythSearchertalk 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think you guys get it. The statistics are very important to Gundam fans-- this is why on every site that profiles mobile suits on the Internet, they are included. They're also included on model kits and in official guides and artbooks on the subject. Jtrainor 07:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I know this and I OWN MOST OF THOSE! They are important, but are they important for understanding the matter for non-fans? Think of it on the other side of the table, if you are a person with no knowledge about Gundam or any military common sense what so ever and came to wikipedia, click on the random article buttom on the upper left hand corner, and happen to load any of the mobile suit pages, and see tons of information. Does it help him/her in understanding the mobile suit and its importance in our world? Not quite. Wikipedia is not here for fans, but for the general public, if we have a perfect page for the public, I would not be against having those specs since they will probably only take like 5% of the page, but now most of them take like more than 50% of the pages and is simply overwhelmingly making the pages look bad. Also, other than fans like me who actually uses those weight, output power and thrust spec in calculating how much time the MS or MA can be on full thrust or can it be launched to space with no addons, etc. Who would need that much spec on every single fictional weapon? Say, what do you use the specs for anyway? MythSearchertalk 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got half an RX-78 built in my garage. :P AMIB is completely overreacting on this IMHO, its a few lines in an infobox and he's treating it like the end of the world. If he's got WAF problems with infobox entries, I'd like to see the convulsions he'd get if he stumbled upon some of the Harry Potter character pages. (Check out Neville Longbottom's page for example) Kyaa the Catlord 09:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone jumping off the cliff does not mean we should follow. BTW, I am building a Gundam hill, kinda like the Mount Rushmore :P But I still see no notability in a full blown spec here when MAHQ did an excellent job over there. MythSearchertalk 10:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Myth has the problem quite clearly. These articles are overwhelmed with content that fansites can do much better. Wikipedia has a goal of being a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a fanpage. A pile of stats not even once mentioned in any of the many anime and manga series doesn't help us do that. (On top of this, Jtrainor, it feels kind of silly to have you preaching to me about what's important to Gundam fans; you're not going to find many other people who have a 1/100 scale Gog model sitting on their computer desk. It's neat, because each of the centipede joints in the arms and each of the claws is individually articulated.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I like these general wiki-philosophy questions. From what I've read from the fundamental principles, we have elements of both general-purpose and specialist encyclopedias. Where does it say that we are to be a general-purpose one? --Kizor 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Being a special-purpose encyclopedia does not make us an originally-researched guide to fiction, nor does it make us an officially licensed guide. These stats are copyvio and don't meet our standards for handling fictional subjects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, I was taking no stand on the stats. --Kizor 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider this: Who has even complained about the stats being in the articles other than just you, AMIB? No one else cares that they are there, so obviously they are not affecting the quality of the article. Jtrainor 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Makieru and Myth both question the need for the stats right up there., right up the page there. Plus, lots of people have complained about the presence of these articles because of the in-universe nature, gobs of original research and plot summary, and crust of original research; the stats are just a part of that problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Jtrainor, what AMIB is trying to address is also a problem across many articles on fiction. Don't be disillusioned into thinking that no one other than him has a problem simply because he is the only one active on this talk page. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on the evidence that he is edit warring against multiple editors who WANT to include these stats and is the only one involved on his side of the debate, and that noone else has taken his side in any discussion other than to propose compromises which AMIB has blanketly discounted, I can't see any evidence showing he has wide support for his opinions on these articles, rather he's unilaterally edit warring against consensus on the pages in question. But thanks for your opinion, Ned. Kyaa the Catlord 05:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I can understand some information in these articles, so the reader understands how tall the Gundam is supposed to be interrupted as, but these stats easily get out of hand. It's fancruft. The attitude many of you are taking reflects very poorly on this project. Here he is making logical argument after logical argument, and you guys all sound like a bunch of pissy fanboys.
To be clear, which stats exactly are being discussed here? -- Ned Scott 05:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Mecha dimensions, armament, sometimes the pilot of the mech. Rather basic, easily verifiable data. I like the inclusion of the character designer in AMIB's version which should be added to the original infobox. It isn't something unique to Gundam that these simple details are included in the infoboxes, the same data could be found in the infoboxes for the x-wing fighter, the tie fighter, the starfury, the vf-1 valkyrie (which goes MUCH MORE in depth than say the Sazabi). AMIB keeps claiming that he's got the weight of consensus behind his edits, but based on looking at similar articles from other fandoms, I do not believe that this is the case at all. Consensus is that basic details like the armament and the rough dimensions of these devices can and should be placed in this sort of infobox. A minority of editors feel the way AMIB does, based on the weight of evidence. Kyaa the Catlord 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What I must say is that we should get enough attention from these projects and try to make is a consensus in the WP:WAF page. Like I said, if they overwhelmed the page, cut them. If they are of a minority portion, say under 10% of the page length, keep them. MythSearchertalk 10:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point would be. Why would someone who ignores WAF care what WAF says enough to go there and build consensus? Consensus already exists. It exists in practice, not a silly guideline page or a bunch of arguments. The consensus is that WAF doesn't exist and can bugger off. (Just my honest opinion on how WAF is viewed by the majority of those who write fiction articles.) Kyaa the Catlord 11:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Not if the page helps them fight off deletionists. The reason why them hate the page is because the page is against them, and if it is the other way around, the other side will be against the page and tends to ignore it. This have been well proven by the WP:Spoiler page, where a lot of the spoiler lovers use it for their arguement, and at some point of time it made the others so mad that it was changed gradually to what it is now, against the spoiler tags so meaninglessly tagged on plot or story sections which will obviously contain spoilers. MythSearchertalk 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been removing the pilot of the mech? Where? That's come out of the infobox when there are multiple pilots, because lists in infoboxes rarely work well.

WP:WAF became a guideline with overwhelming consensus, after it was advertised all over the place. If you have a problem with it, go over to its talk page and bring it up there, instead of presenting a wall of reverts to anyone who tries to clean up articles. "It's a guideline so I don't have to follow it if I don't want to" isn't avery convincing argument. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WAF's become a failure of a guideline cause the true consensus is that noone follows it except when it suits their purpose in an effort to try to claim some sort of advantage in a content dispute. There is no hope to change it on its talk page cause the overwhelming number of people who would respond on that page believe, falsely, that there is no problem and are not welcome to any change to their pet guideline despite WP:OWN. Kyaa the Catlord 22:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What? It's not a guideline because the only time anyone cites it is when they're trying to rewrite an article to real-world style? By that logic, WP:NPOV isn't policy because it's only cited when someone is trying to fix a biased article.
Do you have a reason to ignore WP:WAF other than "I wanna" or "There are other articles that also need cleanup?" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to arguments to avoid in deletions, if we were discussing a deletion I'd keep that in mind. I see you continue to avoid the issue. The problem with WAF is real and simply because you close your eyes and bury your head in the sand to it doesn't make it go away. Noone, other than you, feel that these infoboxes have the WAF problem you perceive. Noone believes that this is a problem that we should be blindly following a "guideline" upon, but you. Even when you went canvassing for friends to jump in and support you, noone came and supported you. Ever feel like maybe, since noone else agrees with you, you might be WRONG? Kyaa the Catlord 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
They are applicable here, as well. You keep saying that there's a problem with WP:WAF, and giving no elaboration other than "I don't like it." What is this supposed problem with WP:WAF? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I do feel some problem in the infobox I must say. They are simply too long in most of the short pages, some were even longer than the article itself.
Like I pointed out in the above, guidelines are all like that, most people only use them when it suits their need, actually, the consensus of fictional material is well beyond what the WAF can say. Think about it with some logic, a lot of pages simply ignore the WAF, and a lot of people argue over the WAF on AfDs and most fictional projects with a larger scale background got quite some in-universe info. It is not simply a matter of other crap exists like most of the people using the WAF page as their arguement say. Since this much crap existed, maybe the consensus of these fictional pages are having these crap in it? It is not easy to change a guideline, and most people who work on their own is not going to see good results and most faced unhappy situations because a bunch of guideline freaks who seldom work on other stuff overwhelms the guideline pages. Which makes it harder to work in changing the guidelines to more like the consensus of all the fictional pages since people are simply not going to want to get through the unhappy process again.
Does guidelines like WAF really follow the few set-in-stone policies of wikipedia? Limiting the number of pages of work, limiting the style of writing and maybe even limiting the sources that could be used, some of the guidelines are simply unrealistic and is questioned in most of the arguements, and when faced with this much questioning, the guidleine pages still ignores them and look at them as separate cases since wikipedia works in a way where each person get out to do their own work. Say, the person who supports the WAF went through tons of resistance on the starwars project, and thinks that it is just a bunch of geeks going against him, while another can face a similar sad situation in the pokemon project, a third can face something in this project, a fourth can face something in the Vitual on project, fifth in Armoured Core, sixth in Final Fantasy, etc. most of them can still go back to WAF and hid in the comfort zone in the WAF talk page, since most of the people there supprted them, and no one tried to link all the instances together and figure out they are not the majority in wikipedia, but only majority in the WAF page. On each one of the projects, yes, there are less people than the WAF, but what about 10 of these projects? 100 of these projects?
I personally see some good things in the WAF page, the Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself. is correct, yet a more compromising page could be created. Like the Harry Potter (character) page, it is recommended as an example in the WP:FICT, scroll down to the Family and heritage in the novels which contains tons of in-universe info, family tree? How is that out-of-universe? Yes, most of the time this is where others jump in to say other crap existed but this is a page used as an example in the WP:FICT, along with Horses of Middle-earth (totally fictional page with no real world significance nor notability even in the eyes of a Middle Earth fan like I am), for more please look at the Examples.
My point is, we should follow the spirit of the policies and guidelines, but not creep it and only follow the words. A list of spec is simply too much, but maybe we can mix some of the specs into the article, and not list them out and get the infobox longer than the article itself. MythSearchertalk 02:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying to discard the specs entirely when they're useful for writing the article. I am saying that a block of fictional statistics copied directly from a licensed guide or off of packaging is inappropriate, either in an infobox or as a universal addition to every article and every entry in a list.

The reason there are so many articles that don't show any regard for WP:WAF is because anyone can edit without having to read the rules or respect our goals or do anything other than click the "edit this page" link. There are many articles that are full of typos, or biased, or personal essays, or just plain false. When we come to them, we clean them up. The idea that "there are so many articles in in-universe style, so all of them should be" would make any sort of cleanup impossible.

Look at featured articles. Not a one of them is written in an in-universe style. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not saying the WAF is entirely wrong, but it did not take into account that most fictional pages' consensus of the project members as a whole, and that is why a lot of arguing existed. Horses of Middle-earth page is an example on WP:FICT, it might not be of FA status(it was at least GA when the FICT page got its entry) but I see a entirely in-universe style page being an example on a guideline page with no hint of being deleted. It is very much like the MS and MA pages we got here, and we can take it as a sample as to what information is needed, and what is not. MythSearchertalk 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Horses of Middle-earth is used on WP:FICT as an example of how to structure an article, not how to write the article content. (WP:FICT predates WP:WAF by about a year, and has been written in kind of a slap-dash way. Deckiller is currently working on a rewrite that makes this distinction a bit clearer.) It's used as an example because individual articles on the horses were put on AFD, and the compromise reached there was to merge them instead of deleting them, in the hopes a full article could be written. It isn't a good example; it's a merge that was made to save some articles from being deleted.
Horses of Middle-earth is completely lacking in references, as well. Does that means that WP:V is invalid?
The fact that there are articles that have not yet been brought into compliance with WP:WAF doesn't mean WP:WAF is invalid, any more than unfinished articles make WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:MOS invalid. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You're forgetting the five pillars, AMIB. You should be finding consensus and avoiding edit wars (pillar four) and recognizing that Wikipedia has no set of firm rules (pillar five). Maybe it is time for you to realize that consensus (at least on the pages which you are a party to the edit war on) is against you and move on to somewhere where your edits have a chance of not being mercilessly changed (pillar three). Kyaa the Catlord 04:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia has no firm rules" doesn't mean "Ignore guidelines because you don't like them." And the rest of your comment is disgusting and pathetic; you just threatened to edit war until I left your articles alone. :P - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? Where am I edit warring? Please observe AGF and CIVIL. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 04:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WAF is a strong Wikipedia-wide consensus. Meaning, it is a consensus among all editors, not just those focused on fictional articles. WAF was written to clean up the mass of poorly written and fancrufty articles we had, so the fact that you find other stuff that doesn't follow WAF is illrelevant, it simply means there is stuff yet to be fixed. Default behavior, such as many of our poorly written articles, is not considered a consensus. Nor is common practice what a guideline always recommends.

What disturbs me is that so many of you feel threatened by WAF. You guys must not think very highly of Gundam if you think some of these articles are the best you can do. Gundam has a long history, and a huge fan following, and the real world information needed is out there. But if all you guys want to do is recap plot, well, sorry, that's not what we're here for (and that's policy). -- Ned Scott 05:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Keyword is solely in NOT:PLOT. AMIB, Malik and JTrainor's edit war isn't about articles that are solely plot summaries, nor are they the best possible work. But they aren't solely plot summaries either. To be honest, do you know what these edit wars are over, Ned, or are you simply coming to the defense of WAF cause you're active there? I'm not threatened by WAF, I'm pointing out the failure of WAF and the misuse of it to try to rationalize and forgive edit warring. Kyaa the Catlord 05:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, another key POLICY is WP:EP. We strive for the best article possible, but not perfection. Are these the best articles they can be? Of course not, everything is a work in progress. This does not justify the edit wars, but it makes the argument for warring in the name of some sort of crusade for perfection even less justifiable. Kyaa the Catlord 05:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know what they're edit warring about. My message was in response to you guys trying to attack WAF in order to counter AMIB's arguments.
I think you guys should take AMIB's infobox design and add height and weight. Lose the "Armaments" section, and mention the model number next to the name at the top. I'm not sure if that info could be considered copyrightable or not, nor am I sure if it's even important info. That is what you guys should be discussing. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not trying to attack WAF, I am trying to say that WAF was sometimes used incorrectly in some arguements. BTW, the model number is copyrightable, but probably will not get anyone into trouble simply by using them as it is just helping them advertise their product.(And that is why I hate model numbers in the page name) MythSearchertalk 06:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Nor am I seriously attacking WAF, I'm attacking using WAF to justify his side of the edit war and the problems with his arguments based on it. His interpretation of WAF is not one that has consensus to support it. Kyaa the Catlord 07:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
So, where's the argument or discussion of how to interpret WP:WAF? There are a lot of discussions above that get sidetracked into personal issues, turn into namecalling messes, or just trail off because I stopped reverting.
Some examples of unrebutted arguments from trailed-off discussions above:
  • "Such infoboxes don't need to be devoid of in-universe detail, it just needs to not be overwhelmed by it, particularly by fictional statistics."
  • "These aren't military weapons; they're parts of a fictional story. The priority is describing their role in the fictional story, and statistics that are so little used in that story that they often blatantly contradict the story (and are copyvio, to boot) just don't belong here."
  • "Think of it on the other side of the table, if you are a person with no knowledge about Gundam or any military common sense what so ever and came to wikipedia, click on the random article buttom on the upper left hand corner, and happen to load any of the mobile suit pages, and see tons of information. Does it help him/her in understanding the mobile suit and its importance in our world? Not quite. Wikipedia is not here for fans, but for the general public, if we have a perfect page for the public, I would not be against having those specs since they will probably only take like 5% of the page, but now most of them take like more than 50% of the pages and is simply overwhelmingly making the pages look bad. Also, other than fans like me who actually uses those weight, output power and thrust spec in calculating how much time the MS or MA can be on full thrust or can it be launched to space with no addons, etc. Who would need that much spec on every single fictional weapon? Say, what do you use the specs for anyway?"
Consensus isn't about who can scrape together more users to revert, it's about discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. Three or four lines of text does not overwhelm these articles.
  • 2. You keep claiming they are copyvio. How? Provide some evidence of where "plasma cannon" is copywritten by anyone related to these mecha.
  • 3. I don't buy into the argument that people are so stupid that a few lines in an infobox overwhelms them with information. The argument that the few lines you are removing from the articles you have been edit warring over is 50% of the article is groundless.
Based on in-practice use, you do not seem to have consensus for your belief even if we look at articles where you have not been edit warring, the overly strict interpretation of WAF you are trying to push is not what is being followed. You are easily in the minority opinion despite having a fancy guideline crafted by like-minded editors. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
A titanic, wholly in-universe infobox DOES overwhelm these articles, and copying a block of fictional data verbatim from licensed guides is copyvio. People aren't "so stupid" that a "few lines" in an infobox overwhelms them with information; the data is of so little value because it is generally written by people other than the actual authors well after the fact, and often does not reflect that actual work in question.
Take, for example, weight. I admit it's been a while since I saw Char's Counterattack, but where in that did they make mention of the Jagd Doga's weight, even in passing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You claim its copyvio, but I still do not see any evidence that this information is directly a copywrite violation. Evidence is normally provided when someone makes this type of claim, I'm simply asking for you to provide evidence that this has been lifted from another source. You seem to have a problem with the size of the infobox, but do not discuss altering its dimensions instead you remove large chunks of it until it meets you asthetic taste. Just for full disclosure, some of the information in the fields you have removed NEEDS to be rewritten or removed. But the fields themselves are not necessarily bad. I'm more against the blanket removal of the fields than I am of improving the information contained within them. (And yes, I'll agree to compromise. Some of these fields are unnecessary.) Kyaa the Catlord 07:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And to be perfectly honest about this, I'd much rather jtrainor and malik be providing sources for the material they want to include in these infoboxes than simply reverting. Kyaa the Catlord 07:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It's copyvio of whereever it came from, which is unhelpfully unspecified.
I'm not removing this in-universe because of some sort of aesthetic objection (although the old template was awfully ugly, largely but not wholly because of its size), but because it overwhelms the article with in-universe content that isn't even important in a fictional context, let alone a real-world context.
Now, I'm not ignoring criticism; in fact, I'm desperate for some kind of input that isn't blank reverts. What fields need to be kept and why? For what articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Jtrainor and Malik aren't the only ones making blank reverts. I disagree with your argument that the infobox overwhelms a reasonably sized article, such as that of the Sazabi. The articles I suggested above have as large or larger infoboxes, but I don't see anyone making any sort of claim that they break WAF or should be removed to the degree that you are removing the data from these. I've stated above the information that I believe is useful to a reader who is looking up these mobile suits. The weapons, the crude dimensions, the pilot, any special features. Infoboxes are useful for having a quick place to find data without having to resort to, ugh, in-universe prose descriptions. (Which some of these suits include! Ugh!) And I'm completely with you when you suggest that the included data needs to be verifiable. I'd argue that your suggestion the because this data is found from secondary sources it is somehow less valid is counter to the verifiability guidelines. Kyaa the Catlord 08:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Jtrainor or MalikCarr have some sort of problem with my italics corrections, adding cleanup tags, renaming sections to be more specific, rewriting of conversational tone, or moving spin-off info out of the lead into a relevant section, they haven't yet explained it to me.

Okay. Something to work with. Why are the weapons or crude dimensions necessary, bearing in mind the arguments MythSearcher has made against weight? What special features should be mentioned in the infobox and why? (We don't disagree about pilots; there's already a pilot and faction field in the infobox.)

Licensed guides that have this sort of description aren't secondary sources. They're not analysis or commentary; they're licensed primary works, set in the setting itself. They're useful for in-universe description (as long as the in-universe description is being used to supplement real-world info), but they aren't in any practical way secondary sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the suits can use the thrust-mass-ratio(and for that, we need the thrust and mass/weight spec) Like S Gundam[Bst] was described as having exceptional acceleration in the story which way exceed the Z Pluses.(of course, with the 1.67G, the poor Z Plus are high spec units, but the S[Bst] is just way over-spec to a 9.72G acceleration that exceeds acceleration of even the F91 and V Gundam) If it is specifically talked about in the story, than I guess we will need to mention them. However, it is also the reason of why I am against of putting these info in the infobox. If they have to be mentioned since it is a part of the plot, do it in the article, not the infobox. MythSearchertalk 08:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the revert war is bad and must stop. But there are two sides involved. Continuing the edit "conflict" isn't the way to handle this....
All this data supplements real-world information which should be contained in the prose section of the article. These statistics should be secondary to the prose where the real world design and creation of the mecha is detailed. It is identifying material which would provide a user with some more flavorful information to help understand and identify the machine, in the same way that the images would provide visual references to the machine so one could pick it out in the actual viewing of the show. Some of the armaments, such as the laser axes (heat hawk) used by the Zaku family mechs, are visual keys which provide the viewer with an identifying difference between them and other mechs. As for special features, I believe things like the inclusion of the psycommu unit and a link to the article on it would be a good example of one of these. (In some cases, the different weapon packages, ie the striker pack, would be listed there.)
I disagree with your distaste of the liscensed guides. These aren't any less useful to our pages as the liscensed "Star Trek encyclopedia" or "Scotty's Guide to the Enterprise" would be to someone writing on Star Trek. Kyaa the Catlord 08:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if anything needed to be secondary sources, the model magazines got them listed somehow for basically no useful reason other than making the page look cool. MythSearchertalk 09:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
When I stop reverting, I also stop getting replies on talk pages. I don't much like revert warring, but if it's the only way to bring people to the table (or the only way to get grammatical and factual fixes to stick), then I'm not offered much alternative.
Kyaa, I'm not opposed to mentioning much of the info in these stat blocks where it's actually relevant. It would be silly not to mention the heat hawk in an ideal version of Zaku II. But universal inclusion of exhaustive blocks only serves to obscure the important facts, like the signature weapons. If every article has an exhaustive block of every single weapon and system, how can anyone who doesn't already know what to look for know how to identify the signature weapon?
Particularly in the infobox...Infoboxes are for the most important facts, things that every reader needs to know about the subject. That the Sazabi has three missiles in its shield or that it weighs 71.2 tons fully loaded aren't examples of important facts that every reader needs to know about the subject.
Fictional guides come in a lot of styles.There are guides that are guides to how the show was made and the thought processes of the writers and the craft of making a fictional world. These are good secondary sources. Then there are guides that describe fictional histories, give dossiers on characters and weapons and places, and generally rearrange the story in a "history" style. These are not secondary sources. We should be using the former as sources whenever possible, as well as do our best to mimic their style. When we use the latter, we should keep in mind that they are usually little better than just citing the works of fiction themselves.
If a magazine or package or guide reprints the stats in toto without commentary, it doesn't suddenly make those stats commentary sourced to a secondary source. They're just an excerpt of primary source material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can also say some bad things about the weapons listed in the infobox. Technically, all of the Zeon mobile suits can use weapons of older models(like the MS-09 can use the 120mm machine gun of MS-06) and even the MA-05's hand can be used to equip the beam rifle of MS-14A. So, we have to list every single weapon they can use in the infobox? Of course not.
No, the magazines do use some commentary, like this is the spec, it shows that such and such is an average suit or acceleration specialist and such. Case by case bases though, not all of them have these commentary, and of course I am only talking about the ones with commentary. Yet, I still see no useful reason for a model magazine to use those specs since the model remains pretty much the same and they do not use the specs to build the models differently most of the time. (there are instances when they do, but they do not really list the full-specs at those moments) MythSearchertalk 09:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That commentary would be great for the articles, especially if it reflects (or is contrasted with!) the authors'/character designers' intent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, commentary in the article, the straightforward vanilla specs in the infobox. I'm definately not pushing to include every weapon known to Zeon that the Zaku can use, but there is a base set of weapons that they are equipped with, the same way a real world fighter plane could switch out munitions based on its mission but also have a "stock" set of armaments. Kyaa the Catlord 10:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is that the "straightforward vanilla specs" are of little value in most cases, and obscure those facts that might be useful.
Remember that we are not dealing with real-world fighter planes; their performance is dictated by their statistics (well, by physics, but you know what I mean), whereas fictional weapons' performance is determined by author fiat. (Unless someone thinks Kunio Owakara had a slide rule on his drafting table to work out mass-thrust ratios...) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
These would obscure facts that would be useful in the prose. In an infobox, they would not distract from the commentary in the prose. In the infobox, these statistics would continue the statistical description of the mecha and further reinforce the fact that these are not vehicles, they are advanced weapon systems. Kyaa the Catlord 10:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. If a stat is important enough to mention in the body of the article, we can introduce it with prose and explain it with prose. If it's not important to mention in the body of the article, we don't need it in the infobox.
We don't need a block of utterly meaningless numbers to establish that these are "advanced weapon systems." Firstly, a block of statistics neither establishes that these are advanced or not vehicles. Secondly, the stats usually don't reveal any important facts, and when they do, we can handle those facts in the prose. Thirdly, the stats don't dictate or measure the performance of the mecha (like the stats do with real weapons); it's all author fiat. (Again, am I the only one here who has heard the old Ball Custom jokes? Paint a Ball red and stick Char in it and suddenly it's the top of the line.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And this is why we don't discuss this, you're deadset against having anything in these infoboxes beyond the two lines you've "allowed" and nothing I say will change your mind. You don't seem to have any intention of compromising. I certainly feel like everything I've said has fallen on deaf ears, especially when I have to repeat the same things I've said before.... (which, if you look at the thread here, I've had to do a couple of times.) Maybe we'd be willing to discuss this with you if you gave a little which it certainly feels like you're unwilling to do. I feel like I've just wasted five hours talking to a wall. No offense, just my honest reflection of what has occured here. Kyaa the Catlord 10:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not deadset against anything; I just don't find those particular arguments very convincing. (It's possible to examine an argument, consider it, and find it unmoving. That's very different from ignoring it.) Myth (and others, he was just the first to mention it) made a good point about size/class, and I was planning to add those fields when I wasn't massively sleep-deprived and prone to screwing up template markup.
Is there a particular field in the old template that you feel is useful in all or the vast majority of cases? Why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't find your reasoning very convincing either. So we're at an impasse. And seriously, I'm tired of this discussion since I don't feel that ANY argument I make is going to sway you. Kyaa the Catlord 12:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say, do not add in the weapon part in the infobox for now, there is no way we could say which weapon is the iconic one without some sort of OR unless it is as obvious as the Heat Hawk of Zaku or the Beam Rifle and Beam sabre of Gundam(where these three weapons are definitely been stated over and over and over in various sources) MythSearchertalk 13:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Point of contention, this is not a discussion on adding material to the articles, rather it is a discussion on what to remove from the articles. I do not ask for additional content, just to stop the removal of material Kyaa the Catlord 13:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is do not include the weapon part in the infobox for now. MythSearchertalk 16:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, either include all of the stats or none of them. Having just partial stats such as just a weight figure makes things look really haphazard and crappy, especially if one compares it to, oh, say, GundamOfficial.com. Jtrainor 04:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not the official website where they can use the specs freely with actual permission from the copyright owner. Also, if an encycolpedia of Gundam was to ever built, in wikipedia, I am aiming for something like Gundam Officials. It does not have a full spec unless the unit takes up 2 or 3 pages of newspaper length article. MythSearchertalk 06:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Infobox MS Gundam}} again

Well, I implemented the class and height tables, then put them into effect in the articles where the template is in use. I made a snazzy switch table to link article sections of Mobile weapons, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

Why does WP:CE redirect here? I'm admittedly biased, but I believe it should redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineering as Civil engineering is frequently abbreviated "CE". ZueJay (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a long story. CE stands for Cosmic Era and was the newest timeline of the Gundam metaseries in 2003~2006. Newest means it attracts most attention and a project called Wikiproject:Cosmic Era was started for the sole means of making pages for that timeline. Most of the pages got dumped because they follow no wiki rules of notability and a lot of them is just copy and paste from the internet. The project page was also having almost no active users since most of the CE lovers are rather newbies of wiki following google or something that came and put tons of speculation to make things worse, and of course most disregard the project page anyway. Anyway, a huge debate got on with deletionist trying to AfD all of the weapons pages and was called the AfD from hell or something along that line, and people noticed someone started up the WP:CE and it was then changed to WP:GUNDAM instead with the little notability Cosmic Era has(new stuff usually have not much real world impact). That is why WP:CE redirects here, it was the original project name before anyone is active on this project here now. I am sure that not much active user will be against you for redirecting it to civil engineering project since that is much more frequently used and I don't think there's much Cosmic Era fans(which mostly are kids in where I live and seldom get into anything that got rules) left here anyway. I will be happy to see it done that way, feel free to do so. MythSearchertalk 17:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree it should direct to Civ Eng., however as a legacy guard on that page you might want to point out that WP:CE used to redirect here and provide a link to this project out of courtesy. David Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you guys for your courtesy on this. I didn't want to just up and change something without chatting about it first. The CE project will definitely display both the Gundam and Copyedit links. Thanks ZueJay (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Since it was only used 17 times (other than this talk page), and hasn't been used recently, I think it would be safe to give the redirect to WikiProject Civil engineering. I've left a small note that says ""WP:CE" redirects here. For the Cosmic Era project, see WikiProject Gundam." on the top of their page, just in case. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll make sure the note stays there. ZueJay (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another attempted mass-delete=

User:Oscarthecat is attempting to mass-nom a very large amount of Gundam-related material with a copy-pasted rationale that does not apply to the stuff he's nominating. Another attempt at mass-removal of Gundam material, without a cause. Also note his sidekick who is voting the same on every page.

Perhaps people will pay more attention to MalikCarr now. Also, I am hereby declaring my intent to take most of these to DRV if by some chance they're deleted-- it's as blatant a case of bad nomination as I've ever seen.

Jtrainor 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, too many losses with Gundam related material and it will just keep getting worse at this point unless if either a completely new game plan is thought up or that stuff is transferred to Gundam Wiki. -Adv193 20:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Give Hyaku Shiki a chance

It got AfDed. Well, I agree that the article was quite poor written so I understand why it got that. But I believe that it should be keep and try to improve it. Unfortunely, I'm not resourceful as MythSearcher and after all I have done, it still not that great. Please improve it so we can go and vote keep heartfully. L-Zwei 05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have a good idea, why don't you ask for what you need(I mean all of you here), and I will go find it, so you can make it an inline citation. It would be impossible to find sources and writting all of those articles at the same time. MythSearchertalk 06:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It needs some references and all the usual noteability crap. I'm pretty sure there have been some articles about it as it's quite a popular model. Jtrainor 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you find some info on Gunpla release of Hyaku Shiki? L-Zwei 05:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe the Type 100 should be merged to a list of MS in Zeta Gundam? It doesn't seem that important to ensue its own article ~ Kind Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.122.85 (talk) 17:15, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

This is a hard call, very hard indeed. It is so not worth mentioning if we just look at the 2 shows it is in, yet the real life impact of it seems to exceed a lot of other stuff around. Some vandal actually went to the extreme in vandalising a statue to imitate Hyakushiki, which is like the most notable non-fan style occurance of any Gundam related display of an mobile suit... yet, nothing else is out of the normal, other mecha that I will route for having its own article normally got their own modelling competition or large scale fan projects going on, yet this one only got the vandalism notable. MythSearchertalk 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Cosmic Era

Hello there.
I just wanted to inform everyone here I have started a new article, Music of Cosmic Era. I have noticed that not a single one of Gundam SEED soundtracks have an article here on wikipedia. I understand that most are not notable on their own, so I have created a "Music of" style page. Please look at the Music of Final Fantasy VII page to get an idea of what the finished article might look like.
I'm telling you this, because there are 40 plus CDs to cover, and I'm not sure I have the energy/resources to do it all on my own. Once this page is a bit more complete, I plan to have the Gundam seed pages have a "link to main article" link under the current audio sections.
If everybody here is too busy to help, that is totally fine, I'll just keep going, albeit a bit slow...
Thankyou! happypal (Talk | contribs) 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the article to the Cosmic Era section of the {{Gundam}} template. --Silver Edge 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did some cleanup work

I went through several articles and added the UCMobileWeaponsRef template, and also categorized a few articles that didn't have their talk pages tagged as being part of WP:Gundam. Also, I've stubified the Adzam article, since there really isn't much there. Jtrainor 09:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I think we should remove spec for now, or at least use less-detail version. Check Japaneese version of each article, you will see that their infobox isn't crowd as ours. L-Zwei 14:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I use them, but it really shouldn't be that long and detailed. Keep the series it first appeared in, height for size and appearance stuff and sides, then maybe the shortened version of weapons (instead of something like MMP-78 120mm machinegun MMP-80 90mm machinegun, use 120mm, 90mm machinegun instead) And that's it, at most we add the acceleration, that is as fictional as we will have. We could make use of something like year desgined in the real world and the real world designer, and maybe redesigned series and redesigners. MythSearchertalk 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What's the Japanese version of the infobox contain? Jtrainor 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Basically what we have. Normally it got the name, the number, belongs to which nation, manufactured by whom, what type (mass-production, prototype, etc.), height, empty and full weight, generator output, sensor range, armour material, main pilots and list of weapons. The only thing is, it looks a lot shorter in kanji and Japanese characters (even shorter in Chinese :) MythSearchertalk 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
However, they don't include some stat if not available. Most AU MS has only "Weight = X tons" instead of "Empty weight = x tons, Full weight = unknown". The special equipment never include sensor (too common to be special, actually) though sensor range would include if available. And armaments list only the name (and number, if there are multi. They don't list powerplant type. They don't list number of missiles store in missile launcher or how many round bazooka has, no rate of fire or power output (pretty much not available in post-CCA series) nor weapon placement. Just name and number, they may has expand them in armaments section in article though. They also list "Armour" instead of "Construction" (PS armor list here instead of special equipments). L-Zwei 05:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hrumph, I've been willing to settle for a small infobox only containing basic figures, such as dimensions, weight, armaments, and any special systems, but leave it to AMIB and the deletionists to continue this pointless edit war over the relevance of such items. Maybe I ought to point them in the direction of the Japanese-language Wikipedia - they might take their one-man concensus army there, perhaps? MalikCarr 08:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The other language wikis are much better in these kind of stuff, there are less or no people making up their own rules about notability. MythSearchertalk 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I imagine they would be. Moreover, there are "reliable sources" (the biggest farce Wikipedia has yet to produce) within easy reach. It's damn well near impossible to find reliable, third-party publications for Gundam related topics in English. There's no language bias on Wikipedia, no sir... MalikCarr 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, non-English sources are allowed, assuming useful English stuff can't be found. Jtrainor 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That's why the project as a whole needs someone fluent enough in Japanese to add such information. What sucks is that there's actually a good amount of neat information about design concepts and pre-production information out there, but said info is sadly mainly found in the liner notes of the laser disc versions of various series (The LD edition of Zeta Gundam in particular had a plethora of this information as well as illustrations). There was a Japanese fansite that listed all this information with the original sources, but I think it only pertains to Mamoru Nagano's work (His versions of Mk. II, Zeta, and how the Zeta design he came up with became the Hyaku Shiki, which actually is mentioned in the article IIRC), and it'd be nice if someone out there was obsessive enough to actually own the LD's and scan in these notes so that they can be proven to be real.
For what it's worth, I'm not a deletionist and I even admit to creating pages about even less notable stuff than this (SRWOG units and pilots) that'll probably be put on the chopping block once someone starts rooting through the category. However I do think AMIB's infobox has more actually useful information, namely where it first appears (series and, when necessary, episode) and who designed the mobile suit originally. If someone could find a way to make a nice, compact infobox with other information, that'd be nice; the one you prefer takes up a good bit too much space on the page, IMO. Maikeru 23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm using that infobox because it was agreed upon by WP:Gundam concensus last year, and is in use of most of the better articles, including the RX-78 article, which was the centerpoint of the entire article conflagration back in January. If that was good enough to survive, it's good enough for the humble articles I've created. Nevertheless, I'm willing to use the infobox setup you've put forth if it'll help end this months-long pointless edit war. Let it not be said I was never willing to compromise. MalikCarr 08:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment on infobox, while AMIB's infobox contain pretty much must-have stat. Lack of armaments does strip MS's character IMO, MS is fictional weapon and the method to destroy thing is possibly the most important aspect for weapon ^_^ . I think that we should use collapsable infobox use by Gundam Wing MS, it would solve layout problem and long weapons list. L-Zwei 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Nvm, it seems AMIB would prefer to continue the edit war than take the perfectly acceptable compromise Maikeru offered. Oh well, no rest for the wicked. MalikCarr 21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I like your idea -- If there's going to be a long list of weapons in a modified infobox, I think it should be collapsible to preserve the article's layout. As for my compromise, I'm not entirely happy with it because it's way, way too large -- it spans the entire length of the article down to the References section. Ideally the infobox should normally take up just the length of the introductory paragraph, maybe the table of contents as well; it shouldn't bleed over into the most important content of the article. Maikeru 00:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ - as it is, with the small text, it gives a nice flow to the article. More importantly, the article's main body and the infobox end on the same line, which minimizes wasted space and makes the article look more full and complete.
Moving right along, if you'd like to get a good idea of the level of hypocrisy among certain deletionists, our good friend has now alleged that I have made "no arguments" about the inclusion of armaments in an infobox for an article. Even if you ignore all the ones made on this page and the talk pages of other articles, the talk page of the article in question goes on at length about the value of those items. Ah well, I've come to expect this Ministry of Truth-grade litigating by this point. MalikCarr 05:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We have rejected AMiB's infobox. Any infobox would be better than one created by that user. Kyaa the Catlord 07:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Three of you have outright rejected it (you, MalikCarr, Jtrainor), but this project consists of more than three people, doesn't it? Given the amount of time since the last consensus on an infobox, I think that one of two things need to be done soon (see below). Maikeru 07:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are more than three of us. But there's only one of you and guess who is pressing to change the infoboxen? Unilateral much? Kyaa the Catlord 07:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather be the lone jerkoff who tries to incite some kind of change than the person sitting on the sideline over the status quo when improvements can and should be made, whether agreeable to my point of view or not. Right now, AMIB is the only one with an infobox akin to that of most other articles (contained within a template for easier entry and editing, using a style like those of the FFVII character infoboxes and other fictional character/weapon article infoboxes). I don't think that maintaining the articles as they appear right now is the right thing to do, so I want change of any kind. It's just that AMIB is the only one working on said change. Maikeru 07:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Its very nice that you want change. Rather than comparing the infobox to those of a fictional character, why do you not compare it to one of a fictional fighter craft, such as the X-Wing, Primus class battlecruiser or vf-1 valkyrie? These all contain fields very similar to those in the existing infobox and are much more similar to our robots than a character infobox would be. Kyaa the Catlord 07:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. If anything, I'd say that an infobox for Gundam designs in general should be treated as both a character and a vehicle profile at once, really... I'm sort of waffling on the topic of a weapons list and whatnot, mainly because the weapons list as it is uses a lot of crufty stuff that should be snipped out of the lists (namely the calibers of the bullet rounds and the silly weapon brand/serial numbers established by the UC Gundam Online game) and because it really encourages MAHQ copypasta. Admittedly, though, the weapons -- especially the signature weapons like the beam rifle and beam saber of the Gundam, or the Zaku machinegun, Zaku bazooka, and heat hawk of... well, the Zaku -- are pretty important... it's just that I don't think it's necessary to list a caliber, since not even Sunrise or Bandai really pays close attention to them. Example: See the HGUC Guntank model -- according to the statistics I've seen pretty much everywhere (essentially the specs as translated and compiled in Burke's Mobile Weapons format, the stuff on MAHQ) the shoulder cannons are a larger caliber round (120mm I think) than its grenade launcher arms (80mm), but the arm cannon barrels are actually bigger than the shoulder cannon barrels. Oops...
But at the same time, I'm 100% sure on several things in AMIB's infobox that haven't been considered for the old-school infobox, like including the designer/designers in the infobox, as well as a field for listing the first appearance of the mobile suit or mobile armor in terms of episode (i.e. episode 1 "Gundam Rising" for the RX-78 or episode 1 "Black Gundam" for Mk-II). So let's say that, of the in-universe stuff, we can perhaps include height, length (for things that are longer than they are tall, i.e. the Core Fighter, Mobile Armors, etc.), perhaps weight (just one figure, the max gross weight), definitely what type of mobile weapon it is (a given), faction (or at least the faction who originally used it), pilot (also a given), perhaps all weapons, or maybe the most notable weapons for MS which have a humongous list of weapons they use (i.e. the Zaku, when you take all the variants into consideration). Real-life stuff... Designer, series in which it appears, first appearance on-screen, and I blank after that because I can't think of anything else pertaining to out-of-universe that can be listed in a short format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikeru (talk • contribs) 08:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the infobox fields need more real world information. I think a compromise is workable, but I don't see anyone who has skills with this stepping up to do it, I just see AMiB's insufficiant infobox replacing a more functional one made by someone who actually did work on these articles. Kyaa the Catlord 08:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You know, it would probably be easier to work on his template to add stuff you want up there. I mean, it is like only missing a little things here and there, and it is a template, it would be easier to modify and add into current articles. MythSearchertalk 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Proposal Yet Again

I'd like to request this, mainly because I'd like to make the not-really-a-consensus consensi (AMIB/myself, MalikCarr/Jtrainor/Kyaa the Catlord) a moot point.

a.) Can we have some sort of vote in favor of either Template:Infobox MS Gundam (AMIB's infobox) or the current, non-templated infobox used in Gundam (mobile suit), MSN-02 Zeong, et al.?

b.) Barring that, can someone make a competing infobox template so that we may have a consensus vote like the one proposed in a?

As I understand it, the current infobox was decided upon around a year ago, so I think that now is a good time to possibly consider options to better align these articles with other fictional character/mechanical articles on Wikipedia. Although it is partially a matter of cosmetics and a matter of deciding what information should go in the infobox and what information can be mentioned in the main body of the article (as evident by the conversations above this), it is still worth considering in order to improve the visual style of the articles. Maikeru 07:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to toss in the towel over the anal retentive edit fucking warring over infoboxes. Your crusade makes Wikipetan cry. Kyaa the Catlord 07:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I personally kinda like the compromise Maikeru came up with. That being said, I won't accept that thing AMIB made. Jtrainor 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you also seen the infoboxes used for the Gundam Wing mobile suits. Check out the one from the Gundam Deathscythe article. -Adv193 19:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I like the one you whipped up, Maikeru. It keeps a few important statistics (the ones I've been arguing for) while also including some out-of-universe information and having a nice format. I like the small text and coloration far more than the official infoboxes used elsewhere, such as in the RX-78 and the Gundam Wing articles. It just looks better - more professional, if you will.
Incidentally, I do hope this will quell allegations of "protectionism" from certain deletionists - even I know when someone's made a better product. MalikCarr 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One aspect I liked from the Gundam Wing infobox is that it limited pilot information to avoid too much clutter in the infobox with it's main pilot slot and only listed major characters in the text summary outside the infobox for other pilots that piloted that suit in minor details. I hope that aspect can be considered for the new infobox since it doesn't need that much clutter or to reference minor character details unless if neccessary. -Adv193 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it'll have any impact on the ongoing months-old edit war, but I've moved the articles in question to Maikeru's infobox format. Such is my enjoyment of it. 1., 2.. MalikCarr 20:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
How about having the year of the series/OVA/movie after the "appears in" field? Might add some real-world weight to appease the deletion-minded people. And maybe we could list the games etc. that the mecha appears in in the same section, like release versions for software infoboxes. Shrumster 08:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a notice, AMiB has one-man vetoed the comprimise infobox at the Sazabi article. Ya'll might want to check that out and instruct him on consensus building. Kyaa the Catlord 07:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Just opinion, but I don't think it's good idea to put mecha designer and debut serie in infobox. Why? Simply because those info most likely note in first or second paragraph. Lets ignore all crappy old article that keep say they're fictional weapon from Gundam series, they suppose to say they're Mobile Suit from [[serie]], deisgn by [[mech designer]]. I think infobox is more useful as quick reference, something people (both fan and not) can get general info without search in mid of text (and again, MS is weapon and how weapon destroy things is important aspect). That being said, I don't like, almost hate, AMiB's infobox, NO with capital. So far I leave it be, but now he use those infobox in Gundam Wing's article, which already has hideable infobox, I guess he is too proud on his infobox. L-Zwei 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I believe we ought to keep the tab about "fictional" in the header when describing that it's a mobile suit created by <X> designer for <Y> Gundam media. It makes those troublesome types who go "ZOMG IN UNIVERSE, MUST DELETE" at reading the first few sentences either read the whole thing, or go bug another article. But I am pleased that you support the compromise infobox, at least in spirit. Question, though. Why not maintain the mechanical designer in said infobox? It seems like a good idea to me; helps put an OOU anchor in the rest of it, and that's always helpful. MalikCarr 02:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Then keep it, I have little to no problem with keep info, as long as it doesn't get crowd ^_^ . L-Zwei 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup stuff

I suggest we get a complete list of articles under our jurisdiction, go through them, find ones with problems, and mark them on the list. That way we know what needs to be done, and when something is fixed, it can be tagged on the list accordingly. Jtrainor 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wake up people! There should be more activity here than just when someone is trying to delete articles. Jtrainor 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Hehe, sorry. Currently busy working in other language. L-Zwei 06:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm gone. Ya'll keep fighting the good fight. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Redlinks that are Deleted Pages

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

[edit] Gelgoog

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

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

[edit] Working on master list

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

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

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

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

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

Earth Federation

Principality of Zeon

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

  • Put model number behind name is truly weird, maybe italic model number may work? (for entry without article, I'm thinking of bolding name L-Zwei 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Model number in italics works, but it can probably work without the italics too. Wouldn't using bold text for entries without an article be distracting? --Silver Edge 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The idea was to make name stand out from model number, but I see that italic model number should be enough (or just re-sort without italic, need to test later). L-Zwei 05:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Test on F91 section in master list, which has several entries without article. I think italic model number is need. Alright, time to actual work on it. L-Zwei 04:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I think the faction names should be bolded so they stand out, because right now they are not really noticeable. --Silver Edge 08:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cosmic Era mobile units

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

  • Great idea. At first, I have thought of organize by title >> faction >> name (listed by producer, not operator) but your idea of get rid of faction sub-section altogether is good (I would wait and see result, may worth adapt to master list as well). And sort by name instead of model number is a must do (definity must done on master list too). L-Zwei 06:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Should the list be reorganized in alphabetical order by name without factions sections or in alphabetical order by name with factions sections? --Silver Edge 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I think pure alphabetical sort without faction look less in-universe but with faction it's easier to organize. L-Zwei 05:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Infobox Mobile Suit

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

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

[edit] Public Service Announcement about Anonymous vandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Fair use rationale required

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

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

[edit] article status

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

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

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

[edit] artcile Striker Pack METEOR

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

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

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


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

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

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

[edit] Just as a heads up

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

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

[edit] Striker Pack‎, again

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

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

[edit] External link bias?

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

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

[edit] Guidelines

[edit] WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [7] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

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

[edit] Gundam 00

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

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

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

[edit] This needs merging

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

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

[edit] Discussion in WT:ANIME

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

[edit] User:198.85.213.1

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

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

[edit] I've redirected the After War article

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

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

[edit] What should we do about this?

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

  • Agree, and the article not even mention Xabungle at all... L-Zwei (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm mainly mentioning it here because I want to know what you guys think we should do with the Gundam-related material. The article itself is outside our scope, of course. Jtrainor (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless a well written article is there, the trivial appearance in Gundam might be able to stand on its own. If no aritcle talks about real world theories of land battleships, then I would suggest either delete it or just ignore its existence and hope that deletionists don't blame us on not fixing it. MythSearchertalk 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What

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

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

[edit] WikiQuote

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