Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Wikia Export

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

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

Gundam X MS pages/Tallgeese

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

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

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

I suggest making a Mecha in Mobile New Century Gundam X page and dumping every single Gundam X suit there. That'll make it easier to clean up. I chose the word "mecha" over "mobile suits" so you can also add in vehicles/battleships/etc. Also, the actual name of the show should be used (I assume it's that one?). I'm currently in the process of planning a Mecha in Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team (it's my favorite series) page as a starter for our WP:WAF cleanup of Gundam articles. Might also go for Mecha in Mobile Suit Gundam F91 and Mecha in Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket. Starting with the short series, so there isn't a huge amount of suits to deal with. (I wonder how big the Zeta page will be... :) ) Shrumster 20:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to my choice of name for the subpages? I'm a bit confused about how I deal with the suits that appear in more than one series though, but I'll probably have the main article in the series where the suit first appeared? Shrumster 16:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. :) I'll go ahead and do a dump then on GX, probably tonight. It occurs to me that also having them all in one place allows for adding in content applicable to all, such as their use in the series (as I recall, contrary to UC, most of them are used by civilians, not military groups) and their design/designers if I can find any good sourcing on that. As for the name, I usually see it as 'After War Gundam X', but Mobile New Century is a direct translation of the Japanese, so I'll stick with that. There's already a After War Mobile Units page, why not use that?
The only suit I think might be worth leaving out of the merge is the title suit, so I'll leave that be for now. Does anyone have any good sources for referecing the episodes? Tiakalla 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
So, how do we deal with the suits that appear in multiple series? Do we just reference them from the original series in which they appeared in? Shrumster 08:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably add them to th original series's page, yeah, and link on the other pages. Tiakalla 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

References

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

Gundam (the original series) is mentioned.

Shrumster 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Shrumster 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever said that the whole Gundam concept is non-notable, it's just those pesky weapons. Moreschi Deletion! 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You'd be surprised. :) I've encountered quite a lot of people who don't believe that stuff like this aren't important to non-fans because they're "just a robot cartoon". Shrumster 13:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What you and other "deletionists" fail to understand is the nature of the Gundam franchise. The "pesky weapons" are elevated to a status near that of characters; the bewildering array of merchandise based off of the more popular ones, and the model kits and resin figures of the intermediate variety, should be testament enough to that. The Wiki litmus test for "notability" is, in this situation, not serving the community as well as it should, giving the rather unique circumstances of this scenario. I keep trying to mention this, and it keeps falling on deaf ears. MalikCarr 03:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'm an inclusionist. Shrumster 08:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. That was targeted at Moreschi. My apologies. MalikCarr 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
At any rate, I've dug up some relevant sources and references to contest the AfD of this article, owing to it being "unsourced fancruft" as the deletion critera, and would appreciate a few keep votes. Despite what they say with "AfDs are not a vote" that's typically how it comes down, no matter how well the dissenting minority clarifies the problems originally raised with the AfD. Please note that this only applies to the Dijeh and Hi-Zack articles; those Gundam X mecha are effectively boned since they really don't have much (or practically anything, to be honest) in the way of notability outside the series they appeared in. MalikCarr 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Need some help please

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

I first encountered user Freedom Justice whem they made a pair of nonsensical edits on 1/23 to the template info of the Cagalli Yula Athha page. [1][2]. To me this looked like the typical driveby fan promoting their favorite matches and I reverted it.

The same editor did something similar to the Lacus Clyne page [3], which was sourced (albeit poorly) in the article itself, so I also reverted that, and briefly explained why. Three days later an anonymous user duplicated Freedom Justice's edit and removed the sourcing in the body of the article.[4] When I reverted that, Freedom Justice repeated the deletion, changing the source to say something else.[5]

I should requested other people to comment at that time, but instead I continued to revert what I saw fan-favoritism vandalism. Anonymous editors repeated the previous anonymous edit on 1/27 [6] and 1/28 [7] and 1/30 [8].

At this point their comments claimed the drama CD said something completely different than the article had originally said and chastised me for changing the article without any proof. (I believe the pot and kettle analogy fits rather well.) Since I had no proof either way, I stated that I believed poster of the old version was more credible than Freedom Justice. [9]

Freedom Justice again posted what I saw as opinion, not fact on 1/31 [10] as did an anonymous poster [11] Freedom Justice on 2/2 [12] and 2/3 [13] and again on 2/3 [14].

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

Now possibly Freedom Justice is right, but they haven't acted in a way that I find credible. I should have asked for outside help much sooner, but I'm hoping someone else will be willing to step in and help with this whole sorry mess. [15]. Edward321 03:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This should fix part of the problem. That part of the infobox really wasn't important, and is just a magnet for these kinds of fan arguments and speculations (WP:OR, etc). As for the edits outside of the infobox, this is just speculation of my own, but when people start to cite a "drama CD" that no one has heard of before.. it's usually bull :) -- Ned Scott 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the detail, but I asked one of my friend who has such CD, he stated that the drama CD referred may be the 8th GSD CD. He will check it for me later to make sure, though may be someone needed to confirm it. Draconins 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I and my friend have not found anything related in the 8th CD, the drama is about Lacus who try to sing the same way as Meer helped by Andrew Waltfeld, I and my friend will continue to 3rd GS CD. Draconins 06:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Now, that I have heard the 3rd CD, I am sure the one thing refered to is the 3rd Suit CD. Okay this cd has a track with a title "Haro". It takes story during Athrun's visit to Lacus's house. There, Athrun thinks that Lacus is pretty, Lacus even talk about what will their children become which make Athrun panic. Later, Athrun also fixed some kind of machinary and build Haro for Lacus. They also talk many more. So I guess this is kind of first love. Anyone can put this to deal with the fan-matching? I want to provide the track, if only it is not illegal, sigh... =_= Draconins 05:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Ned. While I found the line useful shorthand, it is such a target for driveby fan-favoritism that we're better off without it. Such people usually don't delve into article itself. Edward321 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:GUNDAM members may have votes ignored

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

Well, I tried. The current "concensus" is that nothing I have cited in any of these articles is a "reliable source," including but not limited to Entertainment Bibles, model kit listings and Bandai America's Gundam website. With this in mind, nothing Gundam-related beyond the most general things (such as the RX-78, if you remember that fiasco) are "sourced" on Wikipedia, no matter what might be claimed. This was the brass ring, gentlemen, and it is a failure. MalikCarr 12:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's just improve the Wikia stuff. Seems like a big portion of Wikipedia is anti-Gundam (and anime in general), which I find unfair, seeing as Star Wars and Simpsons have very favourable treatment. Shrumster 19:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Gundam X mecha pages/possible source/archive?

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

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

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

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

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

The Gundam X articles were indeed a mess; you'll note I was not arguing for salvaging the GX articles in this latest AfD boondoggle. Gundam X hasn't gotten much exposure in the United States, and contrary to Wikipedia's stated goals of maintaining a "worldwide view" of things, this is a huge hinderance to articles of such topics. Anyway, the three title Gundams, as well as the Frost Brothers' Ashtaron and Virsago Gundams all had 1/144th scale models made of them, as well as their subsequent upgrades (e.g. the X-Divider and Double X). I believe X, Airmaster, Leopard, and Double X recieved High Grade 1/100 scale kits, but I do not know about the others. You may wish to check Hobby Link Japan's shop pages for them. With regards to Mark Simmons' essays, I wouldn't hold them in much regard. The deletionists will discount anything that isn't a "published, reliable, third-party source" when it suits their purposes. You can observe this fiasco of deletionism in the AfD I have linked above. MalikCarr 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
They are published (admittedly within the manga itself, but I thought that original sources were okay for fictional subjects. Although I suppose it's not the "original" source, as the essays weren't part of the original Japanese publication.). As for reliable, he's an employee of Bandai as I recall; ANN says he's done script work on several Gundam series, and these particular essays are published within the manga itself. FWIW, his site has a few more. I seriously don't see how a deletionist could discount them as unreliable. Hm, I should have thought of HLJ; guess I've been out of the fandom longer than I thought >_>;; Tiakalla 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and he wrote "Gundam: The Official Guide", which I imagine says a lot in itself. Tiakalla 06:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
See my above post about that AfD. All of those are not considered "reliable sources" by the deletionists. MalikCarr 12:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Non-notability in US is not important if it is notable enough in other part of the world. Many deletionist seems to forget about this. Another problem is that to see the notability many should understand other languages in Asian, at least Japanese (the series' language), Korean (where Gundam even coined as legal term), and Chinese (many non-original toys come from China). Additional knowledge of southeast-asian language may help too. Draconins 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It is no use, as I have said, some deletionist are just too fond of their own world, and regard anything out of it as not notable. Some even say that anime magazines are not reliable sources of anime. Disregard them, they can live in their world happily ever after, it is none of our concern. Reliable source by wiki's definition should only need a primary source when describing something fictional, and a published secondary source. Most modeled mecha is very easy to have secondary sources, Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby have tons of modeling example that quote the original primary sources. However, I assume what they want are inline citations, quoting page numbers and section titles of the sources, date of publish and such. This is what we are missing in most of the pages, and instead we do have a lot of badly written page without any real sources and only fan written statements. On the other hand of this massive AfDs that had occured, I would be apprciated that they have just provided a very good means of getting my hands on a source search and they will regret what they have done later. A wiki article does not have to be well written, but needs to be sourced and notable(i.e. with secondary source) is what they want. Well, from my source search, we can have a seperate article for "every single mecha" that shows up on a "different issue" of "any" model magazine, as long as the model magazine is quoting the primary source. Meaning we can have tons of "stub" class articles with virtually only official data(sourced from both official means and model magazines or anime magazines) and still can claim its notablity. Of course this is not what we want, and we should only keep Lists of each series for now. MythSearchertalk 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Err, perhaps you were not reviewing the Dijeh/Hi-Zack AfD. DENGENKI HOBBY WAS CITED and brushed off as either (A) not a source at all, or (B) not a "reliable source." Honestly, if they applied this hogwash about "multiple publised reliable third-party sources" anywhere else in Wikipedia, 70-90% of its articles would fail. Perhaps more. Oh, and don't forget that anyone who edits an article being nominated for deletion has no say in the matter either. MalikCarr 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I have cited the following in these deletion debates as sources, and, according to the deletionist camp, they are "not reliable": 1. MS Encyclopedia, 2. Model Graphix, 3. Dengenki Hobby, 4. Super Robot Wars, 5. HLJ, Hobby Search, etc, for model kit listings, 6. Gundam Perfect Web, 7. Bandai America's GundamOfficial.com, and 8. UltimateMark.com and Gundam: The Official Guide. According to the current discussion (read: lynching), none of these are reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It is my belief that there has been a systematic effort to make Gundam "unsourceable" by Wikipedia's standards. Even that appearance of the Mk. II on the Conan O'Brien show is considered to be "pointless trivia" by this crowd. I am convinced that this fight is unwinnable unless we resort to the tactics the Star Wars fans use, e.g. bombard AfD pages with meaningless votes. Sorta like what the deletionists do, actually... MalikCarr 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Malik, I like your enthusiasm for this, but I think you're taking this just a bit too personally. I think it might better benefit things to let the manner drop for now. If there's evidence of further anti-WP:GUNDAM bias where it's not warranted, it would probably make a stronger case.
To me, it looks like the closing admin chose a poor choice of words, to be sure, but that the intent was not to exclude people based on project, but rather those interested in keeping the page regardless of WP policies. (Not that I'm saying y'all were like that, mind.) I didn't see the article myself, so I don't know about sourcing or lack thereof, but I do think the argument is slightly better on the delete side, and that the keeps do sound a bit like ILIKEIT. Going by WP:FICT, those articles need merged anyway. (I wasn't involved in the AfD and can't check the page in question, so I've abstained from the deletion review.)
I don't think this is going to cause problems for reliable sourcing in the future; to me, it sounds like the issue with "reliable" sourcing is that they don't establish notability (which they don't, really, except perhaps SRW.) And most of the articles ARE going to fail notability checks, because a lot of these suits as individuals just aren't important even in the context of the shows themselves, which is why I've been working on merging in line with WP:FICT. Honestly, as hard as some fan worked to make all those pages and infoboxes, I don't think they did Wikipedia or the project any favors. :/
The only concrete evidence of anti WP:Gundam bias I can source, right now, is from --ElaragirlTalk|Count, who has participated in just about every Gundam AfD so far, and also endorses Moreschi's administrative nomination, has gone on record saying that the project should be dissassembled. At any rate, the fact that links to the Gundam Wiki have been removed as "linkspam" from some relevant articles further inclines me to believe there is some kind of institutionalized effort at foot here. MalikCarr 03:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Elaragirl is a declared deletionist according to her userpage; given that these all went in about the same time, it's not surprising that she would have commented on all of them. And one person doesn't make a bias (see also: WP:CABAL). On the link removals, I haven't seen the removals in question, so I can't make a judgement on that.
I do think that you're letting this get to you a bit too personally, to the point where you've been giving out personal attacks. While I do think you have some basis for being annoyed or even angry, it's not productive to those articles or this project, and it makes it harder to take your opinion seriously. So take a deep breath, and chill a bit. :) All that energy is better spent bringing these articles up to WP standards. Tiakalla 03:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I had thought that as well, until I brought up a pair of AfD articles to standards and addressed concerns raised by the nominator, and they were deleted anyway, simultaneously establishing a dangerous precedent that affects all editors whose articles are facing deletion. This was an epiphany to me that deletionists cannot be reasoned with, and once they have targeted an article for deletion, they will fight tooth and nail to see it burn. So yes, I respectfully disagree that my energy would be better spent elsewhere. As Burke (allegedly) said, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" or some variation thereof. I'd like to think I'm at least doing -something-. MalikCarr 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Then you seriously are taking this too personally, as it was your work that was deleted. Again, I didn't see the articles in question, but (assuming you have them saved; if not, I think you can ask an admin to help you retrieve the contents) if you'd like to recreate them on a userpage or send it to me by email or whatnot, I'll take a look at it and see if it can meet notability standards. With my passing taste of UC, the names don't ring any bells at all, so I'm not sure they could stand on their own. But, you've mentioned SRW and Amuro Ray piloting the one, so maybe it can. Tiakalla 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
All the articles nominated were crap at the time the AfD was created. I believe the Dijeh and Hi-Zack had some real-world notability, so I went out to systematically rectify the concerns set up by the AfD's nominator, thinking that those who partook in it could be reasonable. The quality of the article's contents itself was not being debated; indeed, I was going to blank the whole thing and rewrite it once the AfD was over. What was being debated was that (A) the article was unsourced, (B) the item in question was non-notable, and (C) it was "fancruft." I sourced the article (these were dismissed as being unreliable), I provided evidence of notability (these were ignored or discounted), and regardless of "cruft"'s status as an essay, not policy, had pledged to deep six the parts of it that could not be sourced directly (e.g. "but because the Karaba had little resources the Dijeh used many existing weapons"). Trying to have a rational, reasonable discussion with a deletionist is like trying to convince an alligator to stop eating your legs. MalikCarr 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And most likely, the delete votes being counted were from when they were crap; you didn't really draw enough attention to the revisions, I think, for people to know to take another look. But what's done is done; as I see it, the choices are as follows: 1. bring the article up to snuff in userspace or off Wikipedia and recreate it when it's done, 2. conclude that it can't pass WP:FICT on its own and merge it into a relevant list of mecha article, or 3. complain about how the deletionists have wronged the project and get nothing done. I've offered to give you a hand, but if you'd rather look for the cabal, then I should be working on the Gundam X mecha pages. Tiakalla 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:N, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan is 2 independent magazine published by 2 different companies not under or funded by Bandai or any related companies. They make their own money and produces their own goods(other than Gundam related stuff). How reliatble they are? well, Hobby Japan's first published magazine is before the First Gundam anime(1969), and mainly focuses on military and real life models even in latest releases. The Hobby Japan company also publishes Arms Japan and Game Japan, which is not Gundam related.[16] Dengeki Hobby is from the company Media works, they publish some Gundam related books but mainly publishes magazines and all forms of books, with 9 magazines published each month, Dengeki Hobby does not even uses Gundam mecha as their cover every time. (Mar, 2007 uses NGE instead)2. If they do not take these as reliable and notable sources, then I have no idea how anything can be reliable. (Maybe they cannot read it and thus it is unreliable?) Any how, remember to place them into the articles as inline citations quoting page number and issue date, we do our job, let them do theirs, the project is not going to get dissembled any time soon, whoever even mentioned saying it should be is just being unreasonable and making themselves look bad. MythSearchertalk 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the gist of the argument offered; "a magazine about toys is not reliable" and some have gone insofar as to say that, because these items are Japanese, they are unverifiable as well. What happened to that whole "conform to a worldwide view" thing they keep trumpeting? MalikCarr 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, in addition to MythSearcher saying, there are lots of local anime and hobby magazines in East and Sourthern Asia which are independents from Bandai. Draconins 06:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree that that's independant. Notable, I'm not quite sure on, but it's a printed and (non-self) published work, although HJ's long history says something. I don't know what in particular was being referenced, so I can't say for sure on that. I didn't see any mention of it on the AfD though; clarification there would have made a stronger case, methinks. Given proper background like this, I don't see why they would fail WP:RS in another AfD.Tiakalla 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding notability

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

WP:N defines notability as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to defend yourself against "no cited sources"

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

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


How to defend against lack of notability

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable Sourcing

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

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

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

Other things:

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

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

"Don't rely on companies like HobbyJapan and Dengeki for your notability, since they only work on things of this nature." Irrational reasoning. If this was truly a criteria, we couldn't look at scientific journals about meteorology for articles on weather related topics because they focus solely on weather issues. This is amazingly faulty logic. The place to look for information on specialized topics is precisely places like HobbylinkJapan, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous, these are truly reliable and verifiable sources. Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If a large majority of Wikipedians disagree, which seems to be the case since those sources haven't prevented the articles from being deleted, then what is the point. I'm not saying don't use them. I'm saying don't depend on them to establish notability. It would seem to me that you would want to use approaches that work and that end up in producing quality articles that don't get nominated for deletion. And I disagree -- I look at scientific journals for information on meteriology rather than meteorological almanacs to determine notability, even though the latter is where I would find hard data and specialied information. Just my thoughts, given in the interest of helping. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that people seem to think notability is subjective. It is not. There is no subjectivity in the notability guidelines, if we show a number of independent, reliable sources commenting on these topics we have met the requirements. Period. There is no room for argument in the notability guidelines. A topic is either notable or it is not, regardless of attempts to sweep our sources under the rug. Kyaa the Catlord 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that defining independant reliable sources is a major issue, and most people, you must admit, don't see those sources as indpendant. Since WP runs by consensus, if the consensus is the sources aren't reliable, will you suggest it's better for the articles to be deleted than to try to do things in a manner that keeps them around? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
In cases like that, I give up. Sometimes it is better to throw your hands up when you're faced with a consensus that is obviously incorrect. I've pretty much stopped editting Gundam articles due to these AfDs which, in my view, show more of the ignorance of the topic by the majority of those involved in the AfD debates than any real policy issues. Wikipedia is supposed to strive to avoid a western worldview, but based on the history of Gundam-related AfDs this is not the case in practice. Kyaa the Catlord 08:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And Elaragirl's argument do have problem. As Kyaa the Catlord said, lets' assume your argument is right, we couldn't look at scientific journals about meteorology for articles on weather related topics because they focus solely on weather issues. Even if we don't depend on them to establish notability, then we still can not depend on science journal for establish notability on some subject, lets say Roche Limit. =_=; I believe only a few mainstream source can explain notability of Roche Limit. Do not forget, there isn't any consensus yet about independant issue of the source and if you say most people, with good faith assumed, can I know who are you referring? I hate to repeat myself, please search for my argument in [RX-78 AfD]. Did you know story of American Civil War if you are not American? Most will not are or barely hear it. Richard H. Anderson? I also know most American does not care about Football (soccer), is that means Football (soccer) is not notable? Hell, no, ask most European men or Asian men. Do you know Roche limit? Now go to fiction side, anyone who never see Babylon 5 know Spoo?Draconins 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, don't tread on ole Fighting Dick. :P (Gods, what a nickname!) It's civil war cruft! Kyaa the Catlord 09:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

--ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a shame. You can't change bias by simply telling people they are biased. You have to work within the limits and then slowly change things over time. It seems to me that you would like having articles on this series, so to me (and if I'm being wrong or stupid or naive you can tell me why) working to improve the articles to a point where everyone is happy is a good thing.--ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that certain people are not interested in improving articles, they'd prefer to just delete. And, well, the Gundam articles are an easy target, but when similar problems are pointed out with similar western sci-fi articles, the problems are brushed aside. (For example, X-Wing and Starfury.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't get me started on how fucked Star Wars is. If there is a way to improve the articles, they should be improved. Only if they can't should they be deleted. I actually reversed myself in a DRV for that reason, so I'm not being hypocritical here. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • grin* I just don't like the seeming double standard. Our articles are at least as well sourced as theirs, but we have to fight to keep ours when they are given an immediate pass. Kyaa the Catlord 09:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I nominated one that was particularly offensive in terms of lack of sourcing and spades of OR for deletion. I didn't do it to prove a WP:POINT but because it didn't belong. *shrugs* I think -- and I believe -- that if things CAN be improved, they should be. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Elaragirl, this advice is useful for -any- article and the two books you list could be very helpful. Since you seem to own them both, would you be willing to provide information from them for citations? Edward321 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as follows : --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

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

Pg 33 lays out the background of mecha in general, conflating the importance of Gundam with Metropolis and Gigantor.

Pg: 39 starts off with a review of Gundam franchise history. Notable quote:

“ Gundam is perhaps the most influential animated series in the history of the genre. While not as developed in terms of artwork as later shows, it has spawned an industry that has influenced other production runs and giant robot creations, including BattleTech, Macross, Heavy Gear and others. It's influences can be seen in Americanized shows such as Voltron and the Transformers. With a massive modelling, cartoon, and DVD market, Gundam remains the most influential and remarkable series in the mecha continium. ”

(emphasis mine)

Pg 55 talks about mobile suits, including the RX-78 and the MSK-008_Dijeh by name (which is why I reversed my vote at DRV). Useful cite :

“ The RX-78 is iconic in it's status, appearing on stamps, bottle caps, clothing, billboards, and, of course, imitators. Yet it's appeal is not limited to the Japanese -- you can find the image of Amuro Ray and his suit on Chinese toy stores, in Chile, in a bookstore in Nice, and all across the internet. If the icon of a superhero is Superman, then the icon of mecha is the RX-78. ”

Pg 63 has a very disgustingly long list of a large number of mobile suits / robots that introduced new elements into the design of mecha.

Pg 66 compares Gundam to later things, such as Battletech and Macross, and how it's unlikely anime or mecha would have evolved as much as it did without the confluence of Gundam's influence.


Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation By Susan Jolliffe Napier. Published 2001 Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312238630.

Mentions several mecha and their histories and influence by name, including the RX-78, the RGM-79 GM, the MSN-00100 Hyaku Shiki (with about a bajillion images of that), and some more.

I'll provide anything I can on these, although I'm fairly certain that the Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke book has had at least one reprint since my copy was published. Those are the only two books I own on Anime, so I may wander out to the bookstore to pick up something else later on today, if it would be useful. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Hyaku Shiki is damn sexy, for a robot... Um... :P Kyaa the Catlord 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing Problems

Example of what I'm talking about.

GAT-X105 Strike Gundam.

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

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

I am one of people here working on CE articles but it will be slow... We have life. See User:Draconins/ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam and ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam. I still did not touch the GAT-X105 Strike Gundam, and I expect the article will be wide because of it has lots of variants. However you claimed that article doesn't have any source? See the bottom references. It is part of source, though in academic article is not complete ones. Don't forget we may not just copy pasted from other site as it is copyright infringement. Well, anyway don't forget to add your sign. Draconins 08:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No it's not a copyvio, I'll take your word for that, but it could use some other sources. I know people have lives...and maybe, since I work on technical and scientific , or business articles where I usually have reference books at hand and facts are indisputable, I'm a bit biased. The articles you are working on should never be nominated for deletion unless someone is being .. mmm. Difficult. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't always copyvio but It may become. See text "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted" every time you edit an article, below save page button? Anyway as intermezzo, facts are indisputable? Are you sure ^^ ? I have worked on many scientific articles before, especially before I register to Wikipedia, and I even found many facts actually disputable and even said so by the "PDF", book or articles....(^^) Draconins 09:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Emm... I do not know about other unsourced stuff in that page, but the one you posted here, wouldn't that be a simple head count on the official product site? Isn't is simple enough that you can just count it and not fall into the OR pitfall? Or do we really need foolproof sources on every number (like sourcing a medical book in order to be able to say human usually have 1 head, 2 hands and 10 fingers?).
And the model magazines issue, those are basically the equivalant of a science magazine on the view point of science related topics, they serve pefectly well in the field as expertise and is definitely better than any newspaper you can find. (Which further my point on an AfD having some deletionist quoting the WP:N saying being on newspaper is also not notable, It is not "newsworthiness"). I hope you can understand why most of the people in this project(which was just found less than 2 months ago not counting the inactive period that none of us know its existence and was not named as Gundam but one of the timeline in a pretty new series) feel offended. There are deletionist in every AfD saying the articles are junk, rubbish and everything, that's fine, I know most of those articles are not well written. However, what angers people is that there are people keep poping up making up rules that do not exist, or twisting rules to fit their own interest. We have someone saying having a news article in a mainstream newspaper is not a reliable source, because it is written by someone within the community. Basically if you sum up what deletionists have said, it concludes as Anything that mentions about Gundam is not a reliable source and thus does not show any notablity in the subject.
Here is my summary on the WP:RS page on why hobby magazines are reliable sources by definition.
Attributability: I have provided links above of the companies, one found 10 years before Gundam's debute. The other is a company publishing books even for American companies, and is obviously not an anime based company(It publishes novels as well). They also quote how they obtain information, in what official books, instead of making up information themselves.
Expertise: Just like the Science Journal in the Science community, Model and Anime magazines are the experts in this area.
Editorial oversight: If the material appeared in 2 competing magazines, they obviously have peer review on the subject.
Recognition by other reliable sources: Followed by above point, they did not attack on the opposing magazine on related sources, while it is almost impossible to have reconition by other sources(because it will always be viewed as advertisement), there are local newspaper complimenting on the articles in these magazines as good informative sources for modeling and related information. (Hong Kong newspapers)
It is just so plain obvious that most people voting for delete in those AfDs are just ignoring everything as a source and making it impossible to source anything(including mainstream newspaper). It is also so obvious that the recent AfD noms having a lot of deletionists ignoring the improvements on the article during the deletion process.
MythSearchertalk 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Mythsearcher, the one I linked to makes a statement that it's one of the most extensively modeled suits. I would think a statement like that is more than "simple head count on the official product site" could verify, so I'd rewrite it something like :
"With over 24 model kits and 13 action figures, the GAT-X105 is one of many widely distributed and modeled figures, along side such models as the RX-78. It's appearances in many video games, including those of the Super Robot Wars franchise (cite goes here) , illustrates it's importance to the series as a whole."
Heck, a link to the offical product site is something no one can claim is either out of place or unreliable. "I state that it has this many kits, etc, so here is my proof".
Most newspapers are notable, but what I'm trying to get across to you is simple. We're not discussing if people's interpretation of WP:N and WP:RS is accurate or not. The problem with that is the community decides. The number of people who think, as you so eloquently put it, that anything with Gundam in it is crap, is probably very small. I don't think the sources from Gundam writers or even fansites are crap, but I do think they don't serve to show notability fully independant of the industry. To illustrate what I mean, take the idea of using a modeling magazine as a reliable source. If you're using the modeling magazine to show "Hey, this has 5 model types" , then yes, it's reliable. If you're using it to say "This model has these stats in the movie" then yes, it's reliable. If you're saying "this model appeared in this modelling magazine and so it's notable", then it's not reliable because all the modeling magazine does is list product (unless there is a big difference in how magazines covering Warhammer minis list things and how Gundam is listed). The magazine is a primary source. A book written about anime and mecha in general has no specific link to Gundam and can be used to determine NOTABILITY.
The key thing here is horses for courses. A lot of things are getting deleted because writers are trying to make good articles and some people are focusing on following rules. Of course it's frustrating. Why do you think I'm here, or dug out two anime books I had in my closet, or am going to all the trouble of typing this mess out? I would certainly like to see less Gundam AfD, because it splits the community and wastes time we could be using to remove articles that really don't belong here. There are enough sources in mainstream media to safely source almost all the notable Gundam articles. Some , like the RX-78, are clearly notable and are mentioned in tons and tons of places. Some others, like some of the Mobile Suit Variations (ahem, such as Flydart) would probably work best merged into a larger article. If you include a mainstream source such as a Japanese newspaper and it's called unrelable, then that is bullshit. If you use a modeling magazine with a distribution of 50,000 to claim that SP-W03 Mobile Pod is notable, people are going to go "WTF?" with good reason. Using the same magazine to provide DETAILS about the pod is just fine, in my view.
I'm not sure where to stand on what makes individual suits notable. Appearance in one of the movies? I would suggest the following might work.
  • Everything in any of the books (The Origin, Blue Destiny,etc) is notable. FFS.
  • Every model that has appeared in multiple anime (Gundam SEED and Gundam SEED destiny for example) is probably notable.
  • Anything a main character uses should have an article or at the very least be merged in with that character.
  • Anything that can be referenced from multiple modeling magazines and hobby kits, as long as it appears in at least one anime, should probably be notable.
It seems to me that a suit that appears for a minute in one anime and has one model is rather minor. One that 4 or 5 characters use, seen in books, hobby kits, and the animes, should have an article. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, and it is not opposing mine. In fact the way you define notable is even easier than what I would, and had proposed. The problem here is that if a model magazine, taught how to build the specific model, while stating how it is notable in the series and how the modeling of the specific modeling of that mecha improved the modeling technology of the manufacturing company, then it is what I call notable. For example, the MSN-00100 Hyaku Shiki(don't know if it still exist or not) Master Grade model is classified as a turning point of the modeling technology in Dengeki Hobby saying the Gold plated surface was damage in older models when cut out from the injection molding gateways but the new hidden gateway was designed for Hyaku Shiki in order to keep the plated metal intact. Another issue cover story Gundam military have in depth analysis on how Gundam Plastic models affected the modeling community and (here is the main point) how the Zakus fit so well in military modeling scenes. These are a few of why I think these magazine is a reliable source saying how these mecha (specific ones) are notable. They provide analysis and is definitely the experts in the field(editors write about modeling 10 years before Gundam show is on air and 11 years before the first Gundam model?)
I never said everything is notable, as I have said in previous discussion, I have no wish in keeping most of the pages we have right now. I did not go merge the pages myself is because that takes a lot of time and a lot of people can do that, I'd rather find sources and improve articles that I think should probably have their own page. (check Z Gundam and ZZ Gundam recent edits) I am just offended by what I have seen in the AfD noms, with actully some deletionist stating anything quoted about Gundam is not notable(and no, he/she does not have the same argument than you do) and a bunch coming up later saying Delete per X, and tell you why the atmosphere around here feels the same way I do.
I am not an inclusionist, in fact, I feel probably the same way most of the reasonable deletionists feel like, the old articles are just too badly written and most of them must go. I just do not have the time to go start AfD noms on articles like Horses of Middle Earth with my hands full of real-life work and articles that probably should stay but are in very bad condition. However, I cannot tolerate there are people in those AfDs noms just blacklist everything and do not listen to reasoning. MythSearchertalk 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stats template

I've created an infobox template for mobile suits at Template:Infobox Mobile Suit. Instructions for use of the template, along with an example are at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit.

Have a look and see if its of any use to your Wikiproject. I've updated a couple of After Colony Gundams with this... see Gundam Heavyarms for an example. -- saberwyn 10:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My Reconstruction Bid

I've been working on making a mass-dump of mobile suits for proper WP-ness. Right now, I'm working on my favorite series, so just mobile suits from the 08th MS team. Here's what it looks like right now, and still needs a lot of work. [17] Just a heads up to the people who are trying for suit articles. We have a better chance if they're grouped together via a grouping of real-world significance, like the series they appeared in, versus what "family" of suit they are, etc. Shrumster 19:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

... that is FA worthy. Anyone going after that for sourcing or notability is stark raving insane. I know sourcing is an issue, and currently I'm trying to figure out ways to improve the sourcing for these articles. If you need any help let me know. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Now, that is what I have proposed earlier, but there is 1 glitch. There are suits that appeared in more than 1 series, like the MS-05, MS-06, MS-09 and MS-14 series. A link to the first page might be better than having a short description on where it appeared. (Okay, the Zakus should probably at least have its own page, it is the only mecha that is not a Gundam type that got its own book published, still finding the copy I was reading). Another problem I am seeing is that most of the sources are Bandai, that's no secondary sources at all. I will be doing something similar with the first Gundam series, I have some sales figures of that series and maybe the 08th MS team suits can link to the original one. MythSearchertalk 05:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I'm planning. For suits that appeared in more than one series (that don't have their own article), we have a short blurb about its role in the article's series subject, and then have a "main article" redirect to the first series that the suit appeared in. For the 08th MS team page, I'm planning on dumping the info for mecha like the Magella, the non-ground type Zakus, etc. into the future lists of the series they first appeared in (I'm guessing it's MSG original for most of them, especially the capital ships). Shrumster 10:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and no problem with lack of secondary sourcing at all. WP:FICTION rules say that daughter pages in support of a particular article need not have their own, independent notability as long as the parent article (in this case, the parent series) passes WP:N. Here's a non-Gundam example of an article I've been working on for a while [18] working on those principles. Shrumster 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
But of course, the real-world sales figures would be a great help. More interesting info to bulk up the articles' notability and interest. Hell, if we could find newsletters of some modeling clubs detailing suits used as winning entries, that'd rock too. Shrumster 10:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) Sourcing.

MalikCarr, who appears to not get the whole point of sourcing an article, deprodded (properly) MSN-03 Jagd Doga. Well and good. Provided a collection of links that , while not independant, are decent enough to start with. Well and good.

However, much of the article was NOT found at any of those sources (and yes, I checked every one). Thus, what I've done is removed the unsourced stuff to the talk page. Once a proper source is found, it can be put right back. This allows for :

  1. Hard work not to be merely deleted or destroyed but available for everyone to see
  2. Sourcing of unsourced things to avoid ugly [citation needed] tags.

If anyone has a problem with this, please scream at me on my talk page or here. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 12:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah for Precedent

In choosing to make a headcount, rather than concensus (why do they put that "this is not a vote" template on somethng that obviously is?) in this mess, GRBerry has now added his endorsement to the "editors' votes are not important" status quo shared by the deletionist camp. Which is strange, really, because when you look at his past history, GRBerry really -isn't- that much of a deletionist. Seems they come in all flavors, shapes and sizes these days... As Farix said, the evidence of a systemic bias in favor of deletion is mounting. With a norm like this, I wonder why anyone would bother trying to improve an article, since your say in whether or not it should be kept, or that of those who work on similar things, is irrelevant.

Additionally, it would seem to me that, based on some remarks added to the deletion review, Wikipedia is for Wikipedians, not your average person looking for information on a subject, since apparently anyone who doesn't have an account and doesn't make many edits is a "single purpose account" whose opinion doesn't matter for beans. Suddenly my argument about good faith with inclusion vs. deletion makes so much more sense... MalikCarr 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to improve some (non-Gundam-related) articles up for AfD before. Nothing, they got deleted as well. One problem with the AfD system is that a bunch of people will come along, say "delete", and never come back even if the article is improved substantially. Then, when the admin just comes along and counts their "vote", he sees more delete "votes" and deletes the article. Sigh. Shrumster 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
While I've normally been supportive of cutting down on some of the Gundam articles, that was.. well.. a fucked up AfD closing. I mean, really, what the fuck. Even if the reason to delete was more than that comment that was left, it was really in bad taste. -- Ned Scott 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who are discouraged

This little test speaks volumes http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia/ --HellCat86 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. Shrumster 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh exploitable. This could be quite a potent resource in the future. MalikCarr 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This only says that we have flaws, and no one disputes that. Not every single AfD is going to be perfect. We do try to have a little faith in our fellow editors to have good reasons to give deletion arguments, and we do try to not assume they're just performing a test (that doesn't actually prove it's point). Instead of bitching and moaning about all this, how about we get back to editing articles? We've got so much to do and have so much potential with this subject that it's insane to be crying over such trivial things. Don't sell yourself short, we can do better than the articles that were deleted. Does it matter that XX354 JJ Y Gundam was red and had green feet? No, get over it. Meanwhile, more core Gundam topics desperately need your help. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Bah, being so optimistic about this whole affair is just asking to get kicked by the powers that be. If you recall, expert deletionist Moreschi even stated a truce in that he was done nominating Gundam articles for deletion; true to his word, MER-C nominated them from then on and Moreschi endorsed. That's the kind of environment we work in on Wikipedia; give an inch and they take a yard. At any rate, my Zeong article got a B-ranking from WP:Anime and Manga, so I suppose I could have some faith for a while longer that the system does work. MalikCarr 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


This page could use some cleanup

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

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to do it, unfortunately. You might wanna improve or merge it. Jtrainor 21:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a Gundam quote?

"What I lack is the courage to accept myself for who I am." Sasahara says it in the Genshiken manga, and while he could be quoting anything, I rather get the feeling he's quoting something from Gundam. Sound familiar to anyone? Keep in mind that it might have been translated differently for Gundam. He also says "God, my own father never even hit me." earlier in the manga, and it is confirmed that he's quoting Gundam there. Anyone know which series and episode though?--SeizureDog 11:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Another mass-delete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MS-05A_Zaku_1_Early_Type

Mobile Armour's of the universal century (gundam universe)

This article is essentially a fanpage. I don't know if there's anything salvagable. If not, I'll take it to AfD. --Wafulz 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also RMS-099 Rick Dias, which was previously deleted. --Wafulz 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is not that bad, it seem like a list with description. Maybe the problem it is not an fan page but rather in-universe style? 202.154.30.27 13:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Moving seperate MA info to specific series mecha description would be better. MythSearchertalk 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be possible since there is a huge number of Universal Century of Gundam series and it would help with the sorting also after taking a look at that page I would express that the descriptions to the Mobile Armors require a rewrite and some of the descriptions can be reduced and not loaded as much with information.-Adv193 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, just a note, notability aside, the correct name for this page should be Mobile Armour of the Universal Century. Armour's is possessive. I moved it there now, just so you know. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

spoiler tags

From the WP:Spoiler page, I see that under When not to use spoiler warnings, it has mentioned not to use spoilers in fictional characters and sections titled plot. I'd say we stop using spoiler tags in all character pages, plot summaries in story articles and mobile weapon pages and make it a guideling of the Gundam wikiproject. Anyone oppose to the idea? MythSearchertalk 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

some help here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MS-06_Zaku_II Gundam x105 05:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Major revamp on the MS-06 Zaku II, from what I am seeing in the AfD discussion, there is no way it will be deleted since the consensus there is to keep instead of delete(even the Man In Black shows promising arguement that he is turning from delete to keep or at least indifferent) The only opposer is the nom, who is ignoring facts and assuming bad faith and TTN, who did not comment on the article after it was modified and improved(since it was just done and I doubt he got time :) MythSearchertalk 08:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I did add a comment on the Zaku II Kai it was from a board post i read by Mark Simmons who does the research for Bandai us on the gundam Franchise. I just don't know how to source it.Gundam x105 13:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it is the most commonly depicted variation, the Ground type would have more grounds because the MG Ver. 2.0 is MS-06J. (The original if MS-06F since it is the only type appearing in the first Gundam) I will see if I can find some source on the R-1, it did got its own MG model. MythSearchertalk 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gundam Development Project proposed for deletion

Again an article about mobile suits was nominated for deletion, this time the Gundam Development Project from 0083. If someone has real world informations or knows something to improve the article, well, help is required. I don't know much about this suits so I can't do much. Diabound 11:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This one I am not really keen on fighting for. I like the suits, but it really does not have any real world impact. It would be fine if other 0083 suits are merged into this one, since it would be way to long for including into the 0083 article no matter how little info we have on each mecha. However, the problem would be most of the other suits in 0083 are already included into either the Zaku article or GM article, hmmm... I guess the Neue Ziel and Gerbera Tetra could be merged. MythSearchertalk 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I really don't have time tonight to do anything more on the topic, guess it will have to settle like that for now. It will need some clean up, some ref, and main article links to 0083 article and from 0083 article, and hopefully a bot fixing the double redirects. MythSearchertalk 13:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only tags on it are for cleanup and sources. Edward321 13:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

New infobox - Template:Infobox MS Gundam

The old infobox in use on some articles was really huge and composed entirely of in-universe trivia, so I've created a leaner, real-world-focused template. It's {{Infobox MS Gundam}}, and it's already in use at MSN-04 Sazabi.

It's based largely on the video game character template, albeit without the slick trickery for specific game series. It doesn't include stuff like specific armament and speed and weight and suchlike by design, but if there are any fields people feel are missing, I can always add more.

Don't say I never did anything nice for you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me if I don't find removing some of the most easily sourceable material from an article to be "nice." MalikCarr 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It's also blatantly unencyclopedic. The specific speed or weight of a fictional mecha is not the business of an encyclopedia, and it's certainly not the business of an infobox in a general purpose encyclopedia. Infoboxes need to cover the salient real-world facts, not in-universe trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know how to edit it, but I will say remove the faction part, it is just pure fictional and I think it will be better to cover it in the article if it is worth mentioning, since most of the articles that will use this box is probably the lists of suits that list every suit in one particular series, and the series and faction of this info box will seems pretty redundant. (The series part could be kept since it will occationally be used in some notable ones.) And the notable suits normally are factionless(mass production types MS that are used after a faction defeated another, for example?) MythSearchertalk 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Will the faction always be redundant? All of the fields will automatically disappear when they're not in use. I know that it won't be useful in every article, but most of the generic suits are more or less faction-specific. If it truly won't be useful, it can easily be removed.
The series is a basic fact to be mentioning. If it's implicit from the article title (say, "Mobile Suits of Gundam Foo"), then the field can easily be left blank. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It will not always be redundant, but most of the time I can think of in UC notable suits usually it is not necessary, I can think of ones that could use the info, like the RX-78 series. Yet the Zaku is used pretty much by both factions, the Zeta Gundam is used by AEUG and EFSF, Zeta plus and GP series is AEUG, EFSF and AE testers, Even the GM is used by EFSF, AEUG, Titans and Rick Dias is AEUG, Axis/Neo Zeon, Titans, EFSF...These seems to be those that are quite notable, or at least I can think of more real world influences. The faction field might be a lot better if it could list multiple factions there, I don't know if it will work or not or how it works, but I see a lot of tank articles having multiple items in one field. MythSearchertalk 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no reason it can't have multiple factions; it just starts to look ugly when you cram too much into one field. Hm. I'm gonna leave it for now and ditch the only-mention-one-faction thing; if it is ugly or useless it's much easier to remove it from the template than to add it after the fact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe adding the height parameter is a good idea, people have no idea what kind of size it is right now, it is human height? or is it like 300 metres tall? I think it is necessary to let people have at least the slightest idea to the size of the suit. Then come to think of it, some of the MAs will need length instead of height, any good idea in making it selectable? MythSearchertalk 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be easy to make a signle flexible field, although as a different solution to the same problem I was considering some sort of "type" field which would link to appropriate sections in Mobile weapons. That article would explain the size, as well as offer other useful context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, but not a good alternative, since a person who never saw any of the Gundam series, would have no idea about the size, and might not click to the type section. MythSearchertalk 07:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Without saying that I'm necessarily opposed to a size field, how far do we go in stating the obvious? Someone unfamiliar with Gundam isn't necessarily going to know that mobile suits have a single pilot, that they aren't typically capable of flight but are often adapted to spaceflight or hostile/unusual environments, that they're weapons of war, and so on. I was operating on the assumption that Mobile weapons was required reading for understanding of these articles, and size isn't terribly important within a class (most mobile suits are roughly the same size and mobile weapons are all the same size: bigger than anything else). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the Mobile weapons page will eventually undergo AfD some day if it cannot be sourced and I am pretty sure that it is very hard to get a reliable secondary source for that article. MythSearchertalk 09:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There's always going to be someplace that explains the difference between a mobile armor and mobile suit, that's all I mean. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There should be, yet I'm just afraid that some deletionist will not think the same way. You have your point there, let it stay this way and see if there are anything we could add later. MythSearchertalk 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way mobile weapons could be deleted. It's not at all unreasonable to have an article for mobile suit, considering there's 20-some years of toy history and critical commentary and design discussion and such. If Wikipedia suddenly enacted a hypothetical new policy where each Wikiproject could only have one article on a fictional subject, that would be in the running for the one for this project to keep. The article could be a hundred times better, but I would say that it's inviolable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Parallel train of thought.

I was thinking that I could implement a "Dimensions" field, with "Size" as the default label name. The label name would be customizable, though, and could be replaced with "Height" or "Length" as necessary. Is this essentially what you were considering, Mythsearcher? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. The only part I don't understand is the each Wikiproject could only have one article on a fictional subject. MythSearchertalk 10:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a silly hypothetical situation. My point is that Mobile weapons is practically the flagship fictional subject article for this project, that's all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like it, but we still have the Technology pages and the CE super weapon page to deal with some day, some time... MythSearchertalk 10:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The statistics, by and large, are gone and need to stay gone. It isn't necessary for an encyclopedia of the real world to be focusing on the weight and specific weaponry of fictional weapons, both because it's a copyright violation (in particular, it's competing directly with licensed guides that are paying for the right to republish such fictional information), and also because they're arbitrary numbers ignored whenever dramatic license calls for it. WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes, in particular, calls for us to omit such in-universe trivia for real-world facts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A New Friend

Isn't it nice to be known that you have friends in the administration?

It would seem that the new tactic of the deletionist camp is not to outright vote articles off the project with a few friends and compatriots, but to reduce their quality down to a meaningless level, then letting the "mediocrity police" handle the rest.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother trying... is maintaining a few articles really worth all this drama? MalikCarr 21:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is sad. This is the weakest example of the "Don't touch our shit" Wikiproject mentality that I've seen in a long time.
There is no deletionist conspiracy. Instead, there's a project desperately trying to protect low-quality and inappropriate content from any sort of improvement or cleanup, harassing and driving off anyone who tries to clean up the mess.
This wouldn't be nearly so pathetic if someone of the articles didn't genuinely have potential for improvement. This project is supposedly working to maintain a series of articles on one of the most genuinely influential and popular anime series ever. It's not like there isn't the potential to make high-quality articles, based on the great amounts of critical commentary, insight into development, and popular influence.
Now, you can edit war and bloc vote keep and be obstructionist, and keep some really crappy articles, while continuing to be the laughing stock of Wikipedia. (Hell, even the Pokemon Wikiproject does a better job than this, and they have even less reference material to work with.) Alternately, you can follow the excellent examples set by the Final Fantasy and Doctor Who projects and work on writing well-referenced, high-quality articles.
Either way, I'm going to continue to try and clean up these articles. I don't think I can do it alone, because there's so much to do and I can't read Japanese. Despite this, I plan, insofar as I can, to improve what I can, either with the help of or, at worst, despite this Wikiproject. I invite collaboration instead of obstruction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please keep your personal attacks, such as the one made in the edit summary of this comment to yourself and off of wikipedia. Please remain civil. Kyaa the Catlord 01:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This is pathetic trolling. It's trolling for sympathy. "Oh, please, pity us poor oppressed being persecuted by the deletionist cabal!" People are trying to fix these articles because they're broken, not because they're part of some deletionist cabal.
The sooner you stop trying to drive off anyone who tries to turn these "articles" from fanpages to part of an encyclopedia, the sooner this project isn't a laughingstock. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've accurately described your "improvements" as what they are. Edit warring is not acceptable behaviour, despite your false belief that you're improving the encyclopedia. If you do not like that other editors have reverted your edits, maybe you're the one in the wrong. Kyaa the Catlord 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you yet read WP:WAF?
All I've met with is unexplained bloc reversion, with no explanation other than that I'm on a crusade or my edits are "fuckage" or vandalism.
Seeing as I know for a fact I'm not vandalising any articles, my crusade is to make well-referenced, accurate encyclopedia articles, and I can't very well have sex with an encyclopedia or a fanpage, I've yet to see any helpful or useful reasons for a revert.
Now, if you'd like to question a specific edit, I'd be happy to explain it in detail. I note a distinct lack of such questions on this talk page, on any article talk pages (with the possible exception of the charmingly-titled Talk:MSN-02 Zeong#Go away A Man In Black), or on my talk page. You do not revert someone's edits without explanation and then accuse them of edit warring. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Now if you'd like to try building some consensus for your "blanking" of huge portions of the fields in infoboxes, I'd have some hope for you. I don't since you seem to be playing the victim card and engaging in edit wars when your preferred changes are not accepted. Rather, you start speaking condenscendingly and from an assumed position of superiority. Your fellow editors do not appreciate that and I kindly have asked you to stop. Your unilateral campaign against the infoxes on Gundam articles should stop until you build consensus for your changes. You have made no effort to do so, rather you "war" on and on. Kyaa the Catlord 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, have you read WP:WAF? I will add the relevant section, if you'd like. Emphasis is my own.

As with all infoboxes, trivial details should be avoided. An infobox for a real-life actor would not contain items such as favorite food and hobbies; these details do not aid the reader in understanding the important characteristics of the subject. In the same way, infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory. For this reason, infoboxes meant for real-world entities should not be applied to their fictional counterparts, since, for example, information important to a description of a real-world company may be tangential to a fictional one. It is important to identify the revenue of Microsoft, whereas the fact that fictional MegaAcmeCorp makes 300 billion GalactiBucks in the year 2463 is probably unimportant.

These infoboxes are huge and ugly (which isn't really disallowed by any policy or guideline, got me there) and crammed with minor statistics never mentioned anywhere but in fan-oriented guides made just to publish these statistics. (Plus, it's copyvio; real-life statistics are uncopyrightable facts, fictional statistics are copyrightable fiction.)

I replaced it with a new infobox, based on other infoboxes (indeed, {{General CVG character}}, one of several templates that set the example later followed in the writing of WP:WAF). Now, it may be missing some fields, but bear in mind that it's for a general-audience encyclopedia of the real world. With that in mind, there may be some more work that needs to be done, but the template will not, cannot, swell to encompass the copyvio specific stats of fictional objects. It's just not the business of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of details in an article is what seperates a stub from a full article. The inclusion of details in a template provides a level of detail someone seeking information would be looking for and the removal of data from the encyclopedia makes it LESS usuable rather than your stated purpose. Copyvio? What are you smoking? The inclusion of data, not the copying of text, into an info box is not a copywrite violation. Attacking, repeatedly I point out, this wikiproject for Idon'tlikeit rationalizations is sad. Kyaa the Catlord 02:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The length of an article is what separates a stub from a full article, and you shouldn't cram inappropriate details, like copyvio or unencyclopedic in-universe detail, into an article just to meet some arbitrary standard of completeness is foolishness. Better a well-referenced, encyclopedic stub which can easily be merged somewhere appropriate (once a list or something is prepared) than a lengthy, badly-referenced in-universe fanpage..
Fictional statistics aren't data. Data is the result of observation and/or experimentation. Fictional statistics are fiction, and when you copy fiction verbatim it's copyvio. There's no possible fair-use claim, because, should someone want to sell a guide to the mecha of Gundam and pay for the licensing rights, they'd be paying to use the exact same fictional material in the exact same way. It's the same reason we can't have galleries of non-free images.
The fact that someone might be looking for the exact weight of Neo-Zeon's underwater variant of the Zaku II is not a reason for us to include inappropriate material. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we include statistics only where they are needed for proper understanding of a subject.
I'd be fascinated to see what you think I don't like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, your opinion is that this information is trivial. The consensus is that it is not. Edit warring over it remains inappropriate, using the rollback function in your content dispute is probably even worse. Kyaa the Catlord 02:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It is trivial. It's never mentioned in the fictional works themselves, only in "supplementary guides" made specifically for stat-obsessed fans. Don't get me wrong; I like this sort of trivia. But it is trivial and it isn't part of this project to make an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Supplemental guides which, whoah, meet WP:RS. Removing sourcable content cause you don't like it. Check. Kyaa the Catlord 03:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Are the weapons on a f-15 trivia? Or how about something less... in service, the weapon arsenal on a Spitfire? Keeping these details in the infobox makes it friendly to those who are looking up data on the mecha and avoids having it in the body of the article. Encyclopedias are supposed to provide information to the readers, would a reader want this sort of information when they look up a mobile suit? Yes, the weapons are inherently part of what defines the machine. Kyaa the Catlord 03:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
They aren't independent reliable sources. They are, themselves, part of the subject. (Nevermind that copying those guides verbatim is still copyvio.) A licensed guide to the universe of Gundam is, most of the time, a fictional work, not a reference work.
It's a reference work only insofar as it talks about the real world. It's a perfectly good source to use for references for claims about the real world (with the caveat that it's going to be subject to licensor approval, and thus probably not too hot as a source for claims of popularity), but we can't use it to justify treating a given fictional subject as a real one and filling the article with in-universe statistics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparing, say, the GM or Zaku to an F-15 or Spitfire is a mistake. They're not historical weapons of war; they're elements of a fictional story. The most important facts are their role in the story, the story of their conception, and how they influenced fans, critics, and later fictional works. Statistics are important for real-world weapons because it places them in context with other real-world weapons. Statistics are not important for fictional weapons, partially because they're copyvio and partially because they're arbitrary numbers ignored whenever dramatic license calls for it. (Plus, they're often not even published or concieved until long after the fictional work itself is completed.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They're copyvio now, are they? Are there any stints the deletionist camp won't pull to see its agenda fulfilled? Incidentally (not that it especially matters; deletionists never compromise or concede any points), the "copyvio" trivia you so loathe is a substantially reduced version that only includes important figures; it's not copypasted from anywhere, as I was the sole interpreter of what was and was not worthy of inclusion into the generalist Wikipedia. Weight, weapons, pilot and anything special or unusal seemed like a spartan and utilitarian set of information to me (as opposed to less useful info, such as sensor range [which has, as far as I know, NEVER been a factor in animation...] or construction materials). Of course, what do I know, I'm just an ignorant and disruptive troll. MalikCarr 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in addition to the fact that they're not appropriate for this project, they're also copyvio. This isn't some effort to ram through deletion by hook or by crook; the paired problems are why I've taken on this particular systemic problem first, that's all.
There are no camps. This isn't a battlefield. We both want to improve these articles, and disagree on how. (Consider the fact that, so far, I've had support from members of this project both times I've brought an article to AFD. We don't differ so much as you think on what articles we both think we should have.) Ideally, I would like to help you to understand WP:WAF and WP:FICT, both very useful guides on writing articles about fiction, then discuss the best form for these articles to take.
You say that weight, weaponry, and other in-universe statistics are utilitarian? What, then, are they used for? In most series, battles aren't about the specific technical details of each mobile suit but instead analogues for personal battles. Improvements in technology are largely abstract; there are the cutting-edge, prototype models in the hands of the main characters, which blow away the mass-produced line models piloted by faceless soldiers. Am I the only one who has heard the infamous Ball Custom jokes?
Now, I don't think you're a troll, Malik. I think trolling like the first post in this thread is beneath you; your history is full of constructive, good-faith edits. Let's move past divisive and entirely imaginary "camps" and "cabals" and discuss how we might improve this encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, can this arguement stop now? This is just getting nowhere. I think first we must all face the fact that if the articles are left as they are, most of them only contain in-universe stuff that is not going to get them go too far, and possibly almost impossible to survive the notability check. Secondly, another fact is that we are not working very efficiently here, and it will be extremely hard to catch up with the AfDs like the one started by user like Mer-C and others that asked for like a few tens of them to be deleted. AMIB is actually forcing us to work (although if I am still the only one who can source stuff, it is still too fast) in a much more reasonable way, not the pile everything in our door step way. MythSearchertalk 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Just when things were beginning to look like cooler heads would prevail, Jtrainor informs me that he's been blocked for his participation in this most recent deletion/notability/cruft conflict. Are we next, I wonder? MalikCarr 04:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Jtrainor was blocked for stating that he was completely uninterested in discussing further, but continuing to revert. Don't waste your time trying to make him out as some sort of martyr. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have no objection to discussing the matter with other people, but at least in your case, you have not been talking about this. You have been dictating what you want to happen and then lambasting people when they do not agree with you.

Let me remind the population here that you, not I, started this whole mess by going against established consensus. Jtrainor 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:MSN-02 Zeong, your talk page, here. It's a little silly to tell me to my face that I haven't been trying to talk to anyone.
Guys, the established consensus in general is that Wikipedia has certain standards on how fictional subjects are handled. Not only does consensus support these standards, but they're good ideas to boot. I am planning to help raise these articles to these standards, and part of that is fixing up the infobox and cleaning up the non-free images. Cleaning up doesn't usually mean deleting, in this case, and when I want something deleted, I will prod it or AFD it.
Bearing in mind WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes, does anyone have any advice on what needs to be added to {{Infobox MS Gundam}}? 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. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to revise my initial thesis on the matter. The deletionist camp isn't necessarily anti-content; more correctly, they're anti-fiction. Your "fictional statistics" can, by extrapolation, be applied to anything pertinent to this fictional topic. The mecha in question are all fictional, and if you want to get technical, they're statistics of the show itself... should we delete all of them, then? MalikCarr 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me know when you're done deluding yourself. At that point, I'll be happy to discuss with you how we can best improve this encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL. Jtrainor 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
For MalikCarr to say that shadowy conspiracies are scheming to destroy his articles is a delusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing shadowy about them. There has been a concerted effort in the past to remove -all- Gundam material from Wikipedia. Jtrainor 11:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, I will be working on bringing these articles in line with WP:FICT and WP:WAF, as well as bringing its many non-free images in line with WP:FU. I would like for this to be in cooperation with this Wikiproject, but it will be in spite of it if necessary. I suggest getting past paranoid fanasies and dealing with reality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you did not approach the matter with such a hostile attitude, you would not be recieving so much resistance. Jtrainor 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we're not the only WikiProject that has its hands full dealing with AMIB's hostile, uncivil and unilateral edits. Wikiproject Final Fantasy has taken him to mediation over this sort of shit. Kyaa the Catlord 01:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:WPFF is currently dealing with a user who has gone on tilt because he isn't going to be allowed to use 30+ non-free images, and he's currently venting his anger at me because I stepped in when he was verbally abusing another user. WP:WPFF does a great job in sourcing and structuring articles in general, and I follow their example rather than wanting to change it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that English Wikipedia is too focused on the western culture, and not to others. See User talk:OhanaUnited/Archive 1#In-universe vs. out of universe, sometimes admins delete/remove/stubify (whichever term you want to call it) things that aren't in their culture. And most of those items, you really have to live there or get into that culture to understand its importence. For example, I could delete an article of a popular artist in, say, Africa even though I never been there because I would view it as non-notable and doesn't have much cultural impact. Of course I could be wrong because I never went there, or talked to anyone asking if that artist is popular or not. Star Wars and Simpson looks like they got special treatment, but they're not. They are symbols of western culture and sources are easily vertifiable because it's written in English. If you bring some oriental culture, in this case, Gundam, editors don't wish to vertify it because it's mostly written in Japanese and they don't understand this language. It creates too much of a hassle for them to vertify if such info are true or not. This dilema needs to be addressed, for Wikipedia is supposed to gather editors around the world and contribute what they know (especially local cultures and places). But if this movement keeps rolling, sooner or later, regional Wikipedias will have a lot of information about its region, and very little info on others (e.g. Japan will have lots of info about Japan's culture and places but very little in other languages, China will have their own info on Chinese philosophy and little at others, Africa will have info slavery history and the road to independence, etc.).

These are just my personal opinions, it's not meant to target a specific individual or group of people. Any geographical names that I mentioned are merely random. And if I hurt anyone's feelings, sorry about that. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not arguing that any given article subjects aren't notable. I'm a Gundam fan myself, and I'm quite aware of the series' popularity in Japan. I just don't want to see the flagrant excesses of the Star Wars and Simpsons articles repeated, especially given that this project can do so much better.
What I can do proactively is a bit limited, unfortunately, because I don't read Japanese. So, all I can do for most of these articles is restructure them for appropriate content to slide right in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another template problem - {{Early Universal Century Mobile weapons}}

{{Early Universal Century Mobile weapons}} is a mess. It is described and organized in an entirely in-universe way, and has many, many, many redundant images. Zaku II, for example, is linked seven times, not counting the many, many redirects.

So how can we reorganize this? It don't think by faction is a good idea, since that's a in-universe way or organizing things and because so many suits are used by so many different factions (particulary the Zaku and its variants).

What would be a good alternate header? Preferably, one we can link; "Early Universal Century mobile weapons ( - U.C.0110)" is entirely mystifying to someone not already steeped in Gundam mythos. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Scrap the template and put link to list in each article instead. It's much more easier to fix article format. L-Zwei 05:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have an opposite opinion, arrange them into series base articles, only having a link to each of the series like List of Mobile Weapons in Mobile Suit Gundam, List of Mobile Weapons in Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam. Each of the lists will have links to separate links to notable suits anyway. This way, the template will not be extremely large. MythSearchertalk 07:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
So you're suggesting just leaving this alone until the list merges have been done, then retooling it just to link to the lists? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Since there are a lot of articles using this template right now, it would be easier to just change the template than to go into each article and changing the template name. So yes, that is what I suggest. MythSearchertalk 07:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

possible resolution?

I took a look at a random selection of military articles, and many of them include detailed specifications in an article section, rather than one of those boxes. I would be ok with the box being shortened if the statistics could still be included in a section of their own. Jtrainor 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't really think they are necessary here. Although I personally use them a lot in discussions, they are really seldom used in guide books and the main story. Let's just link to MAHQ instead... Separate data could really be added into the article to show how it reflects some of the traits of the unit, like the supposedly high acceleration MA-05 Bigro only got a poor 0.59G while the RB-79 Ball got a staggering 0.96G(and RX-78-2 Gundam only got 0.93G). MythSearchertalk 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a reason why I've cut the infoboxes on the articles I edit regularly down to a few bare minimums (height, weight, guns and anything unique about them, e.g. psycommu system). Some of the figures are downright worthless - sensor range comes to mind. When did they ever pick up anything on sensors, anyway? I thought it was always from Minovsky particle interference...
Anyway, AMIB refuses to compromise on a shortened infobox, so it looks like the war will go on for the time being. Though he's now threatening to block me if I continue to disagree with his view on the second Jagd Doga image being "redundant", so if I disappear, you'll know why. MalikCarr 18:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And that reason will be disregard for WP:FUC. Don't play games with the copyright rules; doing so doesn't make you a martyr, it makes you an example. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, sensor ranges are range under the minovsky particle interference. Think about it, it is space, how an a mobile suit have an optical sensing range of only a few kilometers, you can technically see that far with bare human eyes... BTW, sensor ranges are probably the one not followed by plots extensively type, the FAZZ was said to have sensor range of less than 20km, yet in the story, they aimed at and fired shots in a range of a few ten thousands kilometers. They did not hit and that is where the length came from At the current state of art, Mobile Suits do not have the ability to accurately hit targets a few ten thousands kilometers away, and thus it is just betting on luck.(Sentinel) So, the Minovsky Particle is not as powerful as it was mentioned, at least it is only blocking radars, but the beam weaponry that was developed to fire under radar lock on techonology is still deadly in a few kilometers where most sensors can detect before the use of Minovsky particles. However, without the radars, probably the MSs rely heavily on their motherships long range telescope for enemy location. MythSearchertalk 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the statistics, it reflects a misunderstanding of the issue. Statistics measure or dictate the performance of real military weapons. Authors dictate the performance of fictional weapons.
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. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess if it was specifically used in the story, like the above FAZZ case, and contradict with the stats, then it shouldbe mentioned in the article somehow. (another case I can think of now is the 10km sniping of the RX-79[G] by shiro in 08th MS team.) If not, at least the sensor range should not go into the articles. MythSearchertalk 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If someone has taken note of this incongruity in some sort of reliable source. Otherwise we degenerate into fannish nitpicking of "This is a contradiction, and so is this, and so is this" and then the endless warring over over whether it's REALLY an incongruity and so on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, only when actual numbers occured like the 2 examples I gave up there should be in the article. We do not need to add sentences saying it is a contradiction. We only have to mention it in the article since those long range sniping is a special plot device, it contributes to how the unit was modeled. Like the FAZZ is a long range support fire unit, and RX-79[G] took its limits to a 50/50 chance of hitting the target for a tactical assault. MythSearchertalk 04:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I get what you're saying. Yeah, talking about the thinking of the creators is a good idea. Just don't fall into the trap of describing the intent of the fictional creators in lieu of describing the intent of the real-world creators. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.