Talk:Gundam Mk-II

First header

By following the links, I finally discovered that this article concerns an anime series. Could someone who has the relevant knowledge add the requisite information? As it stands, the article reads like a drug-inspired (and semi-literate) ramble. I'll correct the literacy part, but I'm not qualified to do the rest. If no-one can do that, would it be best for the article to be deleted? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and it should probably be part of a larger article, instead of a separate page. Not qualified for such things either alas (or luckily, depending on how you see these things). --fvw* 22:59, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Oops — tildes now doubled. We'll just have to wait for a Wikipedian fan, I suppose. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd have it fixed when I have the time... I created the references for the other mobile suits in the same anime series Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam (such as the MSZ-006 Zeta Gundam and MSN-00100 Hyaku Shiki). Please don't have it deleted. Thanks! -- Paolo Alexis Falcone 08:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This page should be called the 'RX-178 Gundam Mark-II', not Mk-II.

Inspiration in Car design

I know that the Mk-II have inspired a car design in real life, the car designer even took the time to draw a Mk-II next to the concept design notes and the notes is currently somewhere online. Anyone can get a hold of those and upload it as a source to prove the cultural significance of the unit? MythSearcher^talk 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly go leaps and bounds to establishing further notability of the Mk. II. As a main Gundam unit I doubt it's in any danger of a WP:NOTE ruckus, but hey, the more the merrier. MalikCarr 10:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

::The problem here would be that picture I saw was at least 4~5 years old(that is when I saw it) and is extremely hard to find. MythSearcher^talk 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody I know got a copy. Image:VX2.jpg MythSearcher^talk 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Cultural significance"? Bah, still sounds like it's pandering to deletionists... nevertheless, I guess that's a valid strategy, so I'm stuck with it for the time being. >_> MalikCarr 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, way back into the first mass deletion act for the CE Mobile weapons(when WP:GUNDAM was formed and WP:CE became a sub link) there is this deletionist who keep bashing about cultural significance is required to keep an article. Although this is not necessary for wikipedia's standards no matter how deletionists try to twist thw words, I have decided we should always take a step ahead and meet their requirements to shut their mouths so we do not have to explain to them that they are twisting the policies. MythSearcher^talk 06:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

War expands

Seems AMIB wants to continue the war on basically every Gundam article I've significantly contributed too. I ought to make like that other anonymous vandal and get some new accounts, this one seems to be a magnet for unwanted attention and edit warring... MalikCarr 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

MalikCarr, I must say, insisting the edit war is not something really helpful, placing them as plot sections have been done in a lot of fiction related articles and are commonly well accepted and are less stupid sounding than overly exerting out-of-universe stuff inside the paragraphs. MythSearcher^talk 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ConanmkII.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 06:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "spelling and header fixes", WP:WAF

So, on a whim, I decided I'd actually thoroughly digest the policies A Man In Black keeps citing to keep up his revert warring. See, here's what amuses me about the whole thing. There's nothing in Infobox and Succession boxes to substantiate this change - A Man In Black has decided that armaments of a fictional war machine are trivia, thus unnecessary under the policy. Additionally, I haven't found anything pertinent to the so-called "header fixes" in any policy or the manual of style/writing good articles guide, and reviewing the revert history, have not found any spelling errors either.

Shockingly, it would seem that we're looking purely at a content dispute, as I have always claimed it to be. MalikCarr (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, WP:MOS is really poorly laid out recently. It used to make it a lot clearer to not link things in section headers, but it's buried under WP:MOS#Article titles. Don't link things in section headers, don't remove cleanup tags in articles without doing anything about them, and infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it was hidden in there. Very well, I'll remove the links in the headers. As for the rest, no dice - your cleanup tags are disputed by just about everyone except GundamsRus, and the weapons are only mentioned in supplementals? It is to laugh. MalikCarr (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Just about everyone" is...you and Jtrainor. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Except L-Zwei and Mythsearcher, of course. They don't count. MalikCarr (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to where L-Zwei or Mythsearcher have said, "Oh, no, we don't need to write in an out-of-universe fashion in Gundam articles, they're an exception"? I'm not seeing it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They contribute to this article, add sourced content and try to help make it better. You'll note, these edits do not include blanket reverting my edits. If Jtrainor and I were the only editors who supported this version, wouldn't they be reverting to yours? MalikCarr (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

L-Zwei probably didn't look past the infobox, since he reverted a ton of header fixes and new cleanup tags without commenting on them. It's an easy mistake to make. Can you find him ever saying that the articles don't need to be sourced and don't need to be well-organized and don't need to be written from an out-of-universe perspective? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked and I see OR tag in section with several ref. May be bad excuse but that's what make me decide to revert. For WAF, it note that infobox shouldn't include info that doesn't help reader to understand subject. And as I said, as fictional weapon, method to dispose enemy is important character of weapon. L-Zwei (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh! The OR tag is just for the following paragraph, which was previously its own section.

That section claims that such-and-such appearance is the first appearance. The cited reference doesn't claim that this is the first appearance and doesn't claim that the appearance "sparked significant interest in the then-fledgling North American fan community". However, it is an archive of a fan mailing list on a fanpage. That is vastly insufficient sourcing. I could've slapped four {{fact}} tags and a {{rs}} tag on that paragraph alone, but I figured that'd be annoying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Fact: Zeta Gundam was not officially available in North American distribution until 2004.

2. Fact: The Mk. II appeared on the Conan O'Brien show in 2000.

3. Fact: The Gundam Mailing List was the single largest online fan community in existence during those days that can still be referenced.

No information is unsourced in that paragraph. I apologize for not being able to find a reference in TV Guide (is that a reliable enough source for you, anyway?) from seven years ago about the appearance of the Mk. II (assuming one even exists) - an image and the above facts was the best evidence I could provide. If stating the above is original research, I'm really not sure how I could begin to make note of the article's cultural significance in that regard.

Of course, you could be proactive for a change and actually try to improve an article instead of sticking a template in every section and letting it collect dust, but that would just ruin the moment, yeah? MalikCarr (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeta Gundam was not officially available in North American distribution until 2004.

The Mk. II appeared on the Conan O'Brien show in 2000.

As for #3, being a really big fan community doesn't make it a reliable source. I would suggest reading WP:ATT, WP:RS, and WP:V for a bit of understanding what a reliable source is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeta Gundam was released in North America in 2004. You can read this on the GundamOfficial page, which has been handily linked at the bottom of the page.

The image is right there, what more do you want?

The claim is that there was interest in the fan community. I have demonstrated interest in the fan community. Claim proven. MalikCarr (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under some misapprehension that I think these claims are wrong. Allow me to emphasize the problem.

THE FACTUAL CLAIMS IN THESE ARTICLES NEED TO BE CITED TO RELIABLE THIRD-PARTY SOURCES THAT ARE NOT THEMSELVES THE SUBJECT.

You have demonstrated one person's interest in the subject. Not "community interest". You have inferred that this sparked interest in the community from this post, presuming that interest did not previously exist and that this was the first widespread appearance of this design in American media. Again, emphasis:

THIS ISN'T JUST ORIGINAL RESEARCH, IT'S BAD RESEARCH.

Please, please, please, please, PLEASE do NOT make evaluative claims without a source that also makes those evaluative claims! That's what WP:V and WP:OR and WP:NPOV mean. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, after the page is unprotected I'll discard the reference to "fan community" and refer to the GML specifically. Honestly, they were one and the same at the time, but whatever - this point was only added to help emphasize the cultural impact, and it's not like the article is lacking in that department anyway. MalikCarr (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh. That link is insufficient source for any kind of claim. It's something one person posted on a mailing list. "Some guy thought this was important!" is not sufficient sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The new claim would say that there was interest in the GML, which is clearly shown (read the replies, there's quite a few) - really, there's nothing that absurd about it... MalikCarr (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So what? The Gumdan Mailing List was interested in a Gundam reference? Reeeeeeeeeeeally?

The point is that you need to come up with a reliable source to support the factual claims made (This happened, it happened on this show, it happened at this time) as well as to show that it's important enough to be worth mentioning. If no reliable source has ever seen fit to comment on a subject, Wikipedia shouldn't comment either (and no, a fansite archive of a fan mailing list is a long-ass way from a reliable source). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I somehow doubt there's a "Late Night with Conan O'Brien Bump Compendium" out there - in absence of the former, an image to show it happened is the best solution to indicate that this is truth. MalikCarr (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This image is an odd Photoshopped image. It does not by itself constitute a reference that that image was used on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, let alone when or what reaction it got.

Leave the tag saying that the section appears to be original research (conclusions inferred from observation of the subject) and go do some research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote: 'I somehow doubt there's a "Late Night with Conan O'Brien Bump Compendium" out there - in absence of the former, an image to show it happened is the best solution to indicate that this is truth.' Unquote - Without that "Late Night with Conan O'Brien Bump Compendium" you have no reliable source to back the claim and therefore statements of of 'bumpage-ness' cannot be included in the article. Wikipedia is a collection of NPOV, reliably sourced information, suitable for an encyclopedia. It is not, a fan site, a collection of original research or "an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia" particularly if you have no reliable sources to back it up. If you want to make those kind of essay/original research writings, take it to a forum other than Wikipedia - if you do it right, fans will eat it up.GundamsRus (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please help me understand this. This discussion is about what? does that picture ever existed(shown on TV or something) or does the picture constitute as reliable source of Gundam being of great interest? For the former, isn't it fine to just quote which episode (or date of show) and for the latter, it is pretty much reliable enough if it could be proven legitimate? On the other hand, what can this picture prove? The issue is of interest in a TV shown, no more, no less(at less it is of interest to the producers of the TV show) and I think this kind of information should be listed in the main page(of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam) instead of here? MythSearcher^talk 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit to protected page

{{editprotected}}

N Protected edit declined. The requested edit is not specified. Sandstein (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:MalikCarr did not add this image, because he doesn't think it's funny. It's hilarious, though. (the preceding statement {has been falsified by gremlins})

The article appears to have been protected mid-edit by L-Zwei (talk · contribs) - the infobox favored by consensus still appears, while the templates and page layout that A Man In Black (talk · contribs) feels are more important than the three revert rule are there as well. This has caused a lot of jumble; among other things, the fair-use image RX-178S.W.GIF appears twice (once in the infobox, and again in a small caption that A Man In Black prefers). As is, consensus favors the previous version that A Man In Black has been reverting - I believe the edit history will show as much. This is the second time this article has been protected after A Man In Black's violation of the 3RR in the same version. MalikCarr (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not really sure there is evidence to support the 'consensus' that MalikCarr keeps making about Gundam articles that have histories of serious differences of opinion and continual editing.GundamsRus (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask the editors who have contributed to this article. I've already asked L-Zwei, and he agrees - I imagine Mythsearcher would as well, as would Jtrainor. You and A Man In Black obviously wouldn't (it is written in the scriptures that we must never agree on anything, ever). Sounds like a consensus to me. MalikCarr (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary: MalikCarr feels that this has been protected on the wrong version and would like someone to correct this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cute, AMIB. For the record I already headed off the "wrong version" joke at the pass when asking the protecting administrator directly.

You should be pleased I didn't whine about it sooner, like the last time the page was protected after you violated 3RR. But that doesn't matter because I'm a terrible obstructionist/troll/fanboy, yeah? MalikCarr (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I just can't take this seriously. This whole header is epic lulz.

You can have the last word, MC, then I'm marking this resolved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'll put it right back up again, because there's an obvious conflict of interest. Why don't you just unprotect the page while you're at it, remove L-Zwei's partial edit, then protect it again? They're morally equivalent. MalikCarr (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? This is a page about a fictional robot. My involvement in the dispute is pretty much limited to me clicking buttons a few times daily when my cleanup is reverted. If you're worried about conflicts of interest or moral equivalence on this article, please go outside for a picnic with some loved ones. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? The fact that you've been reverting just about anyone that edits these articles since June (save for GundamsRus/Mr. Anonymous IP, since he supports your edits anyway) indicates you've got a vested interest in your version remaining the current one, just as Jtrainor or L-Zwei or I have vested interests in making your version NOT be the current one. The difference is that we are not sysops - we can only revert an article a few times per day, and can't block editors we disagree with.

Incidentally, I think we've debunked the notion of "cleanup" rather succinctly - I made a passage about this on my talk page a few months ago, you should review it (since you ceased discussion afterwards anyway). If you think the page needs more reliable sources, why don't you help find some? If a section is written from a perspective you don't like, why don't you propose a rewrite? You know, like civil and polite editors who don't like warring all day do? I mean, you could go onto the talk page and say something like:

"This section sounds kinda fancrufty because of <X> <Y> <Z>; I would rewrite it so it reads more like <1> <2> <3> and it would be formatted like so..."

and we could discuss and debate the finer points of each others' versions and maybe come to a damned consensus on something that's ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTIVE AND HEALTHY TO WIKIPEDIA AS A WHOLE.

Instead, you'd rather put a template in every section, delete sourced content and add unsourced junk, then threaten to cut me off from prescribed channels of response when such a dispute emerges between normal editors? Goddammit, man, have you ever considered the fact that I keep grandstanding about Orwell and cabals and Dick Cheney and all kinds of other garbage like that because you act like them sometimes????

I don't like edit warring all day and night when I could be doing more productive things, but you're not giving me any choice in the matter! Proclaiming your word as truth and never giving up an inch from that position does not build consensus! MalikCarr (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're an administrator, you're supposed to be capable of enduring massive spams like that. What do they pay you for, anyway? MalikCarr (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[comment redacted]GundamsRus (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please stop annotating my comments - responding to them is difficult in this format, allright? It's also damned annoying to work with.

Second, you've made an interpretation of "fancrufty" wordings (an essay, by the way) and decided your version is correct. At what point was my suggestion to discuss edits before making them and reverting them forever not relevant? I really don't see what leg you have to stand on here, accusing us of unilateral edit reverts without discussion - you don't discuss them either, by and large. Tu quoque, buddy. MalikCarr (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Barzam as the successor

Barzam is the successor of Mk-II, the interior of Barzam is pretty much the same as Mk-II and the only main difference is the head.(Mono-eye system). Should this be mentioned here or not? It is quite in-universe and since they are from the same series originally(Zeta), it seems like this info is not helping in the notability of both of the mobile suits. Any thoughts? MythSearcher^talk 08:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading that somewhere, but I can't place it at the moment. Anyway, if we can source it, there should be a caveat in the section talking about further development of the Mk. II being stolen. For instance, maybe something like:

"Though all three prototype Mk-IIs were stolen by the AEUG, the Titans were able to revive the design (with a more Zeon-style appearance, as with many other Titans units) in the form of the RX-whatever Barzam.<citation>"

What do you think? MalikCarr (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good other than the more Zeon-style part. Titans is against Zeon and might introduce confusion. MythSearcher^talk 09:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That always struck me as being one of the great ironies of the Titans - seeing as they were founded to crush further Zeonesque spacenoid rebellions, their good mobile weapons all have mono-eyes and weirdly-shaped bodies just like Zeon machines did. MalikCarr (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are anti-spacenoid in the sense of government and military, but they accept all good technology(in the sense of using them against spacenoids), and spacenoids obviously have better tech than earthnoids. MythSearcher^talk 13:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, same ref book Model Graphix Special Edition, Gundam Wars III, Gundam Sentinel, Page 205, Katoki Hajime confirmed that the RMS-154 Barzam version is based on RX-178 Gundam Mk-II. The design stand point is that at the end of the Gryps War, Titans required a new mass-production model to replace the old RMS-106 Hizack, it has to be fast production and low cost units to fill in the quickly diminishing army, and the designer chose to base the design of Barzam on RX-178 Gundam Mk-II but change to a mono-eye main sensor to reduce cost and production time, therefore Barzam is the mass-production model of Gundam Mk-II. Thus Katoki refined it in his short story Designer's Graphics Series number 3, Xeku Ein's story to resembles more of the Gundam Mk-II.

I want to change this to a more out of universe perspective, since that is exactly what the real world mechanical designer, Hideo Okamoto, based the design on, instead of what the fictional characters doing so. I hope that GundamRus and/or AMIB can help me on this as well.

Funny that I am quoting what Katoki quotes, not his own interviews... MythSearcher^talk 14:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not necessarily to include the citation in the prose itself - that's what we have a references/footnotes section for. Anyway, if you're going to write a section that's kinda longish like that, you may want to make it a new section entirely. We can crunch out the details as we go. MalikCarr (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop the edit war! Please...

If being in the out-of-universe perspective is so important, I see no point in engaging in an edit war and keep adding back in the tags, if you guys have so much time in edit warring, why don't you guys try rewriting the article in a style you see fit? GundamRus, can you at least try to help rewrite a paragraph and make that as an example so that others know how to write things in an out-of-universe style? MythSearcher^talk 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GundamsRus has never contributed anything to these articles other than questionable content removal/rearrangement and cleanup tags. That said, I believe they are written in an appropriate perspective per WP:WAF, and will continue to revert accordingly. Perhaps if he'd like to actually try contributing something constructive, for once, we might have something to talk about. MalikCarr 01:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The above statement makes it pretty clear that MalikCarr is staking ownership of the article and has no intention of allowing any changes by me or AMIB whatever they may be that he doesn't personally approve of. And I have no intention of letting him be sole and final arbitrator of what appears in the article.4.158.222.49 07:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, then just do as Myth's request. Give us an example on how it should be writen instead of simply be a tag-phile. Unless you don't known how to do it either. L-Zwei 07:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that your only purpose in editing these articles is to be disruptive, Mr. Earthlink. Jtrainor 09:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting disruptive edits hasn't got anything to do with ownership, a policy you often cite but have yet to actually understand. WP:OWN is not a blanket excuse to use for keeping edits that are not productive or helpful to an article that's edited by a small number of people. At any rate, when you've got something constructive to contribute, this will become a nonissue. Until then, no dice. MalikCarr 09:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GundamRus has contributed some in the Antarctic Treaty (Gundam) article by engaging in the relative talk page with the IP address 207.69.137.11 (if this is my mistake, and GundamRus is not the one replied with the IP address there, I hereby state my apology to relating the two together.), thus I believe that by civilly discussing the issue, we can solve the problem.

Therefore, I must ask Malik and Jtrainor to stop accussing him/her of being not contructive and let him/her at least have an environment in which before he/she replies, nobody labels him/her as only disruptive.

GundamRus, and/or AMIB, if you want to show that you are not purely disruptive, please help us, or at least me, in trying to rewrite the article in a format you see fit that will be enough to remove the tags you keep adding back in. MythSearcher^talk 11:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That does appear to be one of GundamsRus' many accounts of questionable purpose, so I guess he has made at least one helpful contribution and discussion as opposed to the usual fair. I have to wonder, however, why he doesn't try this more often... usually he subscribes to AMIB's "delete/tag first, ask questions later" philosophy of editing, which I think we all know is unproductive. If you know there's a more successful venue to work with other editors, instead of claiming that you're right and everyone else is a vandal, why not use the former? MalikCarr 22:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, lets stop user criticism before we get this article on Lamest Edit War page and wait to see if he can add anything useful. I doubt it, but would be so happy if he prove I'm wrong. L-Zwei 04:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in that regard. Despite my proficiency at it, I really don't like pointlessly edit warring with people over minor stylistic concerns. MalikCarr 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So, that settles the problem, GundamRus and AMIB, I again ask for your help in rewriting the article in a less in-universe or better, out-of-universe style. Please try to engage in the discussion and give us some sample rewrites. I can help in finding sources and such if needed in the sentence. MythSearcher^talk 08:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Several times I have started to explain how bring the article into a state where it does not need {in universe} tags, but I find myself yet again being sucked into the mucky world of responding to personal attacks. At this point all I can do to keep focused on the article is to refer to WP:CYF and state that the sections "In Zeta Gundam" and "In Double Zeta Gundam" clearly fall into the "Instead of writing ..." example of how NOT to write about fiction.GundamsRus 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The "attack" stop now and you still not contribute anything, so that isn't an excuse. L-Zwei (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your pledge to stop the personal attacks. When other editors involved in this dispute also agree, we can attempt to have discussion based solely on the content of the article and how WP guidelines can be applied to create an encyclopedic article based on WP principles, without this page devolving into a repetition of the accusations sockpuppetry, vandalism, ownership, fancruft etc. etc. that have been rampant in our recent encounters GundamsRus (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See the thread up the page for why the whole nonsense with Late Night with Conan O'Brian is OR tagged (assuming Malik wasn't the last one to edit the article). The sources are vastly insufficient, most of the claims are assumed true with no verification, and the entire premise is sourced to nothing. I could tag pretty much every sentence in that paragraph with {{dubious}} or {{fact}}.

The in-universe tags are on the plot sections because articles like this should not and need not have large sections dealing with the designs only as in-universe objects. Those sections should explain the process of development of the design, or give some insight on the artists' thoughts, or give some sort of context other than the purely in-universe context. Additionally, many of the design thoughts (take "The Mk. II represented a small increase in mobility compared to the original, and with the deletion of the cumbersome and expensive core block system, room was freed upon for a more modern panoramic cockpit setup (a more or less standard accoutrement for mobile suits in the same series and time period), which is designed to offer increased situational awareness to the pilot" for example) give no indication if they were the thoughts of the real-world designers or the fictional ones, an epidemic problem in these articles.

Pardon the lack of an individualized explanation for the in-universe tag on each of these articles; there are dozens upon dozens with the same problems, albeit to varying degrees. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Err... That is why I asked and am still asking you to help in the rewrite of the whole section. Can you give me a draft of what it should look like if you are writing that section, say, with the excess fictional information cut out? MythSearcher^talk 04:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem that can be solved simply by editing or rewriting what's there. The article currently lacks the sort of out-of-universe information to give those sections proper perspective. Having a "cultural impact" section that amounts to nothing more than a list of trivia doesn't solve the problem that this article has no information whatsoever on the real-world design or conception of the Gundam Mk. II. Without that, there isn't any way to put the in-universe pfaff from Entertainment Bible II in context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of sources are needed? Are something like a quotation of the Mk-II is a beauty or the Mk-II is an important piece in the UC history from secondary sources sufficient? MythSearcher^talk 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, ideally, what we'd like to get would be some kind of commentary or interview with Kazumi Fujita and/or Mamoru Nagano on the drafting of the Mk. II's appearance, how it relates to Okawara's RX-78 in terms of design, and so forth. I've never seen anything like that in English-language publications, so I couldn't say if anything like that exists. Writing about Japanese cultural phenomenons on the English Wikipedia is hard. :C MalikCarr (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Another problem of those sources would be these are primary sources, not secondary sources, so they will still be questioned. A better role in plot source might be a magazine or something similar stating the role of the mobile suit in the story. The problem here is most of the publications are still going on with the Bandai stubborness in producing only 0083 or before units. (say, Bandai just annouced the RX-78 Gundam Ver. 2.0 MG, this is the 5th new MG version and sadly the 8th one even excluding the NT-1 ,G04~G06 and Perfect Gundam) Since the model releases are always good memory recalling devices for Japanese people, usually they come with good redescriptions of the unit, whether in plot or in real-life. I will try to see what I can find, Mk-II still have 4 MG versions and various and should have more mentionings in magazines, I just need to find the right issue. MythSearcher^talk 13:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That is very true; the policies are kind of maddening given the unique situation of Gundam, no? That said, the only thing we really need the secondary sources for anyway is to satisfy WP:FICT and WP:V; the actual guts of the article can be sourced to primary things without worries. MalikCarr (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Any time you're making an evaluative claim, it needs to be sourced to something other than the primary source. You can attribute an evaluation to a speaker, but if you're going to state an evaluation as fact the bar is a bit higher. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hogwash. Why is it necessary for Newtype or Animerica to say "mobile suit <X>'s performance isn't so great" when I can point to Gundam: The Official Guide saying the same thing? I mean, hell, that's completely counterintuitive... are you suggesting that information from the primary source, and by proxy, the creators and copyright holders, is less valid than that from a commentator in a magazine? Where's the logic in that? MalikCarr (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is more of the fact checking part of the issue. According to WP:SELFPUB, the only problem I see having official sources is the last point, we cannot use them as bases of the article, but they can be used as supporting sources. Of course, primary sources like official guides seems to be perfectly useful for claims of exact meaning, for example, for the the MA-05 Bigro, since the official sources claimed its incredible speed, we can source it in the article(given that it got secondary soruces granting its notability enough to have an artcile, of course.). I think the claim of its maximum acceleration at full weight is only 0.59G(5.7879m/s^2) by its 136,100 kg thrust and 229.8 tons full weight. is also valid since the calculation is very simple, and I don't think it constitude OR in this case. A claim of its maximum acceleration is only 0.59G and is less than the RX-78-2 Gundam's 0.93G is still straight forward but maybe not as important in the article, however, we will need another source to state something like its maximum acceleration is only 0.59G and is less than the RX-78-2 Gundam's 0.93G so the MA-05 is of no match against the RX-78 in terms of speed.. MythSearcher^talk 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You can attribute it to an official guide, but you need to be checking your fiction when you do so. Official guides are still fiction, just fiction presented in a guide form instead of a narrative form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is what I am no expert in, and thus I ask for your help in writing things in a non-fiction style. MythSearcher^talk 06:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys...

Can you stop blindly reverting and at least keep the links in the better form? Also, the tags only have little cosmetic issues and if you stop removing them and use the time more efficiently, and let GundamRus and AMIB have more time in their rewrites and disscussion of creating a better article, we will all have a better time and the tags would be gone in a breeze. MythSearcher^talk 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we start some real work? BTW, the correct tag is AM-in-universe, not in universe if one really has to be used. MythSearcher^talk 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless recently revised, the AM-in-universe tag does not scale horizontally and can create layout issues if used other than at the top of an article. It does scale, NMGundamsRus (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Conan O'Brian and bad references

The Mk. II received its first widespread appearance in North American media on the talk show Late Night with Conan O'Brien in a commercial bump. Featured around May 2000, a Gundam Mk. II with O'Brien's face and hands, and a cartoon-like head on the shield, sparked some interest in the then-fledgling North American fan community on the Gundam Mailing List, or GML about a potential US release. Regardless, Zeta Gundam was not officially released in the North American market by Bandai until 2004.

The references for this are vastly insufficient. Still. We need references for:

1. The "Conan Mk. II" was the RX-178's first notable appearance in North American media.
2. The Mk. II received its first widespread appearance in North American media on the talk show Late Night with Conan O'Brien in a commercial bump.
3. Featured around May 2000
4. sparked some interest in the then-fledgling North American fan community on the Gundam Mailing List, or GML (A reference that isn't itself the GML)

I figured more {{fact}} tags than there are sentences would have been annoying, but since the single tag I added keeps getting reverted every time MC edits the article, this isn't going to get fixed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just humor me here. How would -you- go about finding less "vastly insufficient" sources? MalikCarr (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I didn't add content I couldn't properly reference to the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Minus all those additions to the Jagd Doga article, that is. You even added the {{fact}} tags yourself... MalikCarr (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really interested in getting drawn into an irrelevant argument here. The point remains that this needs to be better referenced or left out of the article entirely. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Was that a joke? You've got me in stitches over here. You say you don't know how you'd source it, then claim you wouldn't add unsourced content, and then claim that evidence to the contrary is "irrelevant." It is to laugh. MalikCarr (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Either figure out how to source it, or don't replace it into the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How typical, you tell us to do something without even the slightest bit of support for facilitating that goal. Anyway, turns out there is a Late Night commercial bump compendium, so I'm sourcing it to that. If that's not "reliable" enough for you, I'll just invoke IAR and be on my way - this section is critical to demonstrating cultural significance and real-world impact of this article. MalikCarr (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The linked ref is fine for establishing that it was used on Late Night. Now, we need a reference stating that it was first and that it sparked some interest in the community. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also removed...

Late Night graphical designer Pierre Bernard is a self-stated anime enthusiast, though whether he created the "Conan Mk. II" remains a matter of speculation.

We need a reference stating that he's an anime enthusiast, and we need some sort of reference linking him to this in some way. Right now, we have an example of his enthusiasm, but we don't need the evidence that made you come to a conclusion; we need a reference coming to a conclusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a reference from the man himself in the video; if stating you're an anime enthusiast isn't a suitable reference, I don't know what is. MalikCarr (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally got through on the archive.org link. My point remains: reference the original source of the video (not a random mirror and not a fansite showing a random clip of the original source), and don't argue that such-and-such means that he's an enthusiast, just reference something claiming that he's an enthusiast. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Robotech.com is owned by Harmony Gold, the holding company for the American distribution thereof. To call it a "fansite" is an egregious falsehood. Who needs to be checking their research, again? At any rate, the man says he's an anime enthusiast, that's more than sufficient. MalikCarr (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Only one question... Why do we need to have that video link here? It got nothing to do with the Mk-II at all, all I hear in that talk is about anime babes. We don't need to know that he is an anime enthusiast, at least in this article. It seems to have no connection at all. MythSearcher^talk 03:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It provides a greater context for the "Conan Mk. II"'s existence. Given the fact that the man designs just about every commercial bump for Late Night, and an avowed anime enthusiast, it establishes a further credibility of the item in question. At any rate, assuming I get a response to the e-mail I sent from his Totally Graphic company, I'll have it in writing that he made the thing (or on the off chance that that's not the case, that he didn't) and we'll be able to close this business. MalikCarr (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Errr... Wouldn't the picture itself provide sufficient source for the Mk-II article? If someone doubt its exsistence, wouldn't it be easier to find the particular episode in question and list the episode name or number? MythSearcher^talk 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. I'm also waiting on an email from the host of the "commercial bump compendium" as to when that episode first aired and what episode number it was, which will be posted accordingly whence I get it. MalikCarr (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another question, if it could not be sourced as first widespread, why can't it be one of the earlier widespread? I don't think this is weasel wording, since it would be impossible to source if it is the first or not due to the internet's existence, it would be simple to presume that having appearance on a country wide TV show is a widespread appearance, and it should no doubt be an early appearance since it is before the official release of the series in North America. Why is this weasel wording and why does it need a fact tag? What information is missing in that particular sentence? Please don't revert or addin tags for the edit war's sake, this is a very simple situation. If it needs to be sourced for when does it aired, the fact tag should be in the back, where it claimed the May, 2000 appearance, not in the front, where it uses the 2000 time as reference. There is only one unsourced info here, thus only one tag should be used per this arguement. MythSearcher^talk 09:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel-wording it doesn't negate the need to reference the claim. Factual claims need to be positively referenced, not assumed they're true until there's evidence to the contrary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, WP editors do not need to be (and shouldn't be) the ones doing the research to show it was the 'first widespread US exposure' - that research should be done by reliable secondary sources that WP editors find and quote for the article. The article then would contain a sentance like: "The Great Big Book of Anime states that the appearance of a Conan Mk II on Late Night in 1993 was one of the first US wide appearances of the Gundam Mk II."{ref containing TGBBoA citation} GundamsRus (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A Man In Black has already confirmed this for us in an earlier discussion (it's probably still on his talk page somewhere). Looking at "2000" and "2004", and determining that "2000" is smaller, is not original research. Can't you think of more substantial grounds to be disruptive on? MalikCarr (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet again I find myself having to ask you to refrain from uncivil personal attacks and keep the discussion on this page focused on the article itself.

Focusing on the article, amongst other issues, there has still been ZERO evidence from reliable sources provided that supports the claim of FIRST appearance. The fact that the image was on Conan prior to official release of DVD in no way substatiates claims that there were no prior appearances before Conan. Provide some source to back that statement. GundamsRus (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, we can just keep screaming the same thing at each other all day if that tickles your fancy. I'm really not sure how else to put it... until Zeta Gundam was licensed for US distribution (via the DVD release), any broadcasts of it would have been bootlegs, and reporting that sort of activity on a Wikipedia article could be construed as being support for it. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that there have been prior broadcasts - mostly because I doubt there have been. Ergo, in the absence of evidence of an earlier (illegal) broadcast, the Conan Mk. II becomes the first appearance. If you'd like to prove me wrong, go for it. We can debate the ethics of including such information in the article after you get it. Until such a time, this is the earliest depiction. MalikCarr (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

D comes before M in the alphabet, therefore D is the FIRST letter in the alphabet. If that is the kind of argument you want to use to try and convince me, fine, but isnt going to work, and claims of 'first' will continue to be reverted in the article until you have a reliable source that you can quote. - GundamsRus 207.69.137.41 (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Also, I think you misunderstand some Wikipedia policy. "any broadcasts of it would have been bootlegs, and reporting that sort of activity on a Wikipedia article could be construed as being support for it." If you have a reliable source that states that there was illegal distribution/misuse of copyrights/whatever, there is nothing that prevents you from including that information from the reliable source in a related article. (on the other hand, telling someone HOW to make and distribute bootlegs other copyright vios or suggesting in the article that they SHOULD, well that kind of information would not be appropriate for this article at all).GundamsRus (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

first earliest Why bother?

This is far too much angst over something essentially meaningless. Let's stop arguing about whether this was first or earliest or whatever, since the sources don't really seem to exist, and focus on the more-interesting facts that can possibly be referenced. We have an interesting fact (Pierre Bernard is an anime enthusiast and was working on the show at the time); can we move past speculation that he created this image? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Writing about fiction

What exactly about this passage:

The wrecked Mk. II was brought back into service as a part of the AEUG independent task force (otherwise known as the Gundam Team) near the beginning of the sequel series Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ. Though technologically inferior to many mobile weapons employed by the newly-arrived Axis/Neo Zeon forces under director Haman Khan, it saw action throughout the series until being critically damaged (once again) at the end of the First Neo Zeon War. The unique G-Defenser was never recovered, effectively terminating the "Super Gundam" configuration for the remainder of the Mk. II's appearances.

resembles the 'good' example of writing about fiction:

Trillian is a fictional character from Douglas Adams's radio, book and now film series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the first book, Trillian is introduced to the main character Arthur Dent on a spaceship. In her backstory, she was taken away from Earth when the space alien Zaphod Beeblebrox met her at a party.

Because to me, it could be plopped directly in the the example of how NOT to write about fiction per WP:CYF:

Trillian is Arthur Dent's girlfriend. She was taken away from Earth by Zaphod when he met her at a party. She meets Dent while travelling with Zaphod."

The 'good example' talks about characters, identifies clearly that the fictional works etc. etc. etc. None of that is present in the sample passage from the article. - GundamsRus (some setting on this computer wont let me log in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.20 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Section states that it occurs within the fiction? Yes. Makes note of its functionality within said fiction? Yes. Says it gets punked at the end of the series (vs. the end of the war)? Yes. What's your point? MalikCarr (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tags solution proposal

Okay, the edit war did not end. I have a proposal, and hope that everyone here come to a consensus, with some compromise. We must all agree these following terms if we want to resolve this problem:

1. The article needs a rewrite to a certain degree.
2. The tags look bad, and should be removed as soon as possible.

and here is the proposal I am making:
Since nobody wants to compromise in leaving the tags alone and then rewrite the article, can we first remove the tags? Here's how it works: We set up a time, in which the tags should be removed within this period, and the article will be rewritten during this period and nobody will think of putting up the tags and everyone focus on the rewrite. The period will be short, something like 5~10 days. If no rewrite could be finished within the period, the tags would be put up again, and nobody should disagree on that and keep on working on the article and try to finish it as fast as possible so that we could put up a version where the tags are unnecessary.
Tell me what you think and please just leave it as whatever version it is now at least for the time being during this discussion. If you have reverted it before seeing this, please revert it back to show some courtesy. I will revert it once now to show some grounds of compromise since people might think I am on the side of having it removed. MythSearcher^talk 14:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In its original form, before I fixed it up, the article had (1) no citations, (2) no references, (3) no out-of-universe information whatsoever (barring a reference to the Late Night appearance in the Trivia section), and (4) the term "fictional" was only used once in the entire article. Not once was an episode number mentioned, there was no evidence of cultural significance, and I wouldn't even begin to describe "in-universe perspective."

Since I thought this article, while of a quite notable piece of Gundam, was at a serious risk of being deleted for being a piece of garbage, I took to it - sectionalized it, added an infobox agreed upon by consensus, used better images, rewrote the sections to have the proper perspective, covered cultural impact and real world significance, and added citations and references where appropriate.

Now, I'm not exactly sure why GundamsRus and A Man In Black chose to start edit warring over this article after I fixed it, and not before - perhaps they're trawling my contributions page? - but they're making the kind of accusations that were totally relevant before we got to it; there's no basis in reality for the majority of them right now. If GundamsRus thinks the term "curious" in regards to a weird depiction on Late Night is an evaluative term, fine, I'll toss it - a piece of colorful language isn't worth warring over. However, what GundamsRus/AMiB are now disputing is patently ridiculous.

Why should we rewrite the article? Because they said so? Because A Man In Black is a sysop? I fail to see evidence of the problems they keep tagging in, and in lieu of one of them rewriting it, since they seem to know policy so much better than we do, I see no reason to act on this.

If articles are to be rewritten, why the hell aren't we working on ones that actually need it? For example, the Acguy article is in dire need of the same treatment the Mk. II got; no references, no citations, no cultural impact, no infobox, and the images are all redlinks 'cause they probably got deleted by BetaCommand's dumb bot for not having Fair Use Rationales. This information exists - the Acguy has gotten a High Grade, Master Grade (!) and action figure release all in the last few years, it appears in tons of video games (and Super Robot Wars), and I've even seen stuffed "plushies" of it at Comic-Con International in my native San Diego (must be a nod to the "huggie bear" joke about its appearance). Instead of working on articles that are in dire need of it, we waste time reverting each other for no conceivable reason (unless you buy into my crazy theory about a WP:POINT campaign, but what do I know, I'm just a fanboy).

MalikCarr (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This article does not need a rewrite at all-- the only reason AMIB and GundamsRus are interested in it is that it has been edited by MalikCarr. Jtrainor (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever reason any particular editor decides to become involved in any particular article really has no bearing on anything. Editors can edit whatever articles they choose and their "reasons" for doing so have no basis for discussion either in the history or this talk page. The talk page is to discuss the article itself.GundamsRus (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a laugh. Nobody arguing that this article needs to be rewritten was doing so before I rewrote it. That in and of itself provides a rather significant indication of the motivations of the parties involved. Or would you care to offer a better explanation? Also, I note nobody's proposed any fixes for the Acguy article yet. Better to have an edit war over anything I touch? Or am I reading too far into the situation at hand. Hrm. MalikCarr (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I suck at identifying if the article is in-universe or not, but the first sentence in the plot section took me a while to figure out what it means. I mean, even if it does not need a rewrite for the style it is in, can it be rewritten in a more simple manner so it is easier to understand? Say, instead of The RX-178 Gundam Mk-II are three prototype mobile suits developed by the Titans, an elite special unit of the Earth Federation forces, in UC 0087 - the first Gundam units seen in Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam., can we say The RX-178 Gundam Mk-II are the first Gundams seen in Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam, developed by the the enemy of the protagonists, the Titans, an elite task force of the Earth Federation forces. And the section could be a little shorter, less plot details. I personally am not interested in reading something that long if I have no idea what it is to begin with. It should encourage people to read and go to look into details in the story themselves, insead of a total spoiler and discourage people from watching the original series. MythSearcher^talk 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If we really could not get any common grounds, I'd say we find some admins here and see if they think this article is in-universe or not, and we stick with that consensus. MythSearcher^talk 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Try this:

"The RX-178 Gundam Mk-II are the first Gundam-type mobile suits seen in Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam, developed by the antagonistic Titans force, an elite counterinsurgency group of the |Earth Federation Forces. Three Gundam Mk-II units were constructed by the Titans, with one seeing action in nearly every episode of Zeta Gundam."

Flows nicely, tells us what it needs to. MalikCarr (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason AMIB is interested in it is because it still needs cleanup. I've basically fallen on this one rather than try to monitor DOZENS of articles, since any edit I make will be reverted on sight anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh really?

Why make edits to an article when they're going to be reverted give or take 2 minutes afterwards? 
It's a waste of effort. MalikCarr (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Better you save the three reverts you feel you're entitled to for protecting the article from edits
from editors you don't like instead of trying to improve the article, eh? 
- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh, why does this look familiar... MalikCarr (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Malik, the new one you did sounds way better, it is easier to understand. BTW, I suddenly remembered the fact that the RMS-099 Rick Dias is also a Gundam type mobile suit(Gamma Gundam), so Mk-II is the second Gundam that appeared in the show by the retcon information from Gundam Sentinel. Most peopl will not care about this fact since Rick Dias does not look like one at all, so I guess it is fine the way it is. MythSearcher^talk 03:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rick Dias was -planned- to be a Gundam, but it never actually was one since it got the Zeon-style head. Jtrainor (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a Gundam, its code is gamma Gundam, the first in the Anaheim greek letter Gundam series. Just like the Hyakushiki being the delta Gundam. The first being gamma and not alpha is because it is the first Anaheim mobile suit using Gundarium gamma. MythSearcher^talk 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

claims of 'FIRST' exposure

So Jtrainer, do you have ANY scrap of evidence from a reliable source to back your claim of 'first' widespread exposure, or is it simply your original research? Because according to your edit history notes, there are approximately 6 years you have not accounted for in your 'case'- GundamsRus (and does anyone know what settings would make IE simply spin and spin and spin from the log in screen and never get to display ANY wikipedia pages? 207.69.137.29 (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he does. It's called the publishing date. Z Gundam was released in the United States in 2004; the Late Night appearance came before it. If there was an earlier appearance, it was a bootleg, and I don't think Wikipedia should be covering that sort of nonsense when you consider its hardline stance on copyright infringement. Ergo, for the purposes of Wikipedia, it was first. MalikCarr (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Backed by nothing other than your/jtrainer's claim that there were no appearances before Conan. You need reliable sources to support such a statement within a WP article.GundamsRus (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The US release date of Z Gundam is listed in the anime's article and many other places, as you would know if you had checked. Jtrainor (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

SO WHAT - just because this Conan appearance is before official release it PROVIDES ABSOLUTLY NO PROOF THAT THE CONAN APPEARANCE WAS BEFORE ANY OTHER APPEARANCE - the claim of FIRST requires proof that it was the FIRST, not just that it was before some other event. - GundamsRus

207.69.137.34 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And that, is exactly why I changed it to one of the earlier appeareances. The internet is here, so it will be very hard to proof first. However, it is extremely easy to see that it is earlier than the official release, thus it does not have to be sourced if it only claimed to be an earlier appearance. MythSearcher^talk 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can convince Jrainor to quit reverting to versions that claim 'first', I will quit tagging/removing that claim.GundamsRus (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Quit it. All of you. Page protected.

Calm down and have a cup of tea.

I've protected the page for three days, due to the ongoing edit war. I'm sure that I have protected The Wrong Version, but I don't care. This is a silly little thing you're all fighting over.

I want the editors involved – and you know who you are – to behave like rational, reasonable adults and talk it out. Pretend you've never met each other before and don't hate each other's guts. Pretend you're at a job interview and you're trying to make a good impression.

Pretend that there's a Wikipedia admin watching who feels very strongly about the importance of our policy demanding civility from all contributors.

Don't condescend. Don't YELL. Don't post while angry, drunk, or in anything other than a calm, cool, and placid state of mind, when you're full of feelings of warmth and love for your fellow editors. Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down.

When you sort things out and reach some manner of consensus, feel free to use the {editprotected} template.

If any of the editors here decide to move their dispute and edit warring to another article while this one is protected, they ought to be aware that my blocking button is itchy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

work to make section meet WP:RS when block comes off

Per AMIB's suggestion, here is the comment that was removed from the article so that people who want to can work of providing appropriately sourced content to include the information in the article when the block is removed. GundamsRus (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Late Night graphical designer [Pierre_Bernard_%28comedian%29|Pierre Bernard] is a self-stated [anime] enthusiast,{ref}Bernard has commented at length about the superiority of Japanese animation as opposed to that which is produced in the United States, including Recliner of Rage segments about the [Anime Network] (YouTube Video) and Harmony Gold's releases of [Robotech] DVDs (Robotech.com Video), the latter of which garnered a news article response, complete with chart.{/ref} though if he specifically created the "Conan Mk. II" bumper remains a matter of speculation.

Any suggestions on where to look for substantiation that Bernard worked on the image so that the boled speculation could be removed?GundamsRus (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a response from Bernard's graphic design studio, wherein I asked exactly that question. Until such a time, there's no issue with the latter comment - it is, in fact, speculation, and is indicated as such. Nothing against policy about notifying the reader of speculation until such a point as the truth may be ascertained. MalikCarr (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I still have no idea why is such information is important to the article. Someone please enlighten me. Why do we need to know who did the picture? MythSearcher^talk 12:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We should make the most complete article as possible; if that involves making references to other pieces of media or things/people, all the better. One of the charges against Gundam articles in the last big article conflagration was the term "walled gardens" to refer to a "bunch of fancruft that only links to itself." Ergo, the more tie-ins to the real world we can make, the better the article is. It also creates a notable thought regarding Gundam's cultural impact in N. America, since not only do we establish there was an appearance of it on broadcast TV years before you could even legally buy it, but that one of Late Night 's well known members is an anime (and depending on what his response says, Gundam) buff. A double zing for the project and a total boon to this article's notability. MalikCarr (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions. The bolded statement in question is a statement of fact—it asserts that there has been speculation about the origin of the design. Consequently, it really ought to have a source. Who has speculated on this issue? When, and where? Some possible solutions that come to mind:

• Remove the statement until there is definite information about the original of the design and there's no need to mention 'speculation'.
• Slap a {fact} tag on it until the definite information is available. (This assumes that the statement is relatively uncontroversial, and that there will be updated information available fairly quickly.)
• Find a reliable source that indicates that there is speculation by a large group of people or by individuals who are themselves notable.

There may be other valid solutions as well; I have no intention of imposing any particular resolution. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Begging your indulgence, but the statement does not assert that there is speculation "by a large group of people or by individuals who are themselves notable." The only claims made here is that the design history is unknown, and though there is circumstantial evidence to suggest Bernard's involvement in it, there is no definitive proof, thusly it is a speculative matter. You don't really need a source to indicate something is speculative - the fact that we're discussing it right now is speculation. MalikCarr (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If the speculation is not by a large group of people or by individuals who are themselves notable, why bother mentioning it at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, hey, that's a precedent I'd like to set. "If <X> is not by a large group of people or by individuals who are themselves notable, why bother mentioning it at all?" Sounds like a disaster to me. MalikCarr (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to: Speculaiton by no matter how small a group is noteworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia? I myself support higher bar for including 'speculation' in an encyclopedia.207.69.137.6 (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC) GundamsRus

I don't think the person quoted needs to be notable, as long as the source is reliable, then it should be fine. MythSearcher^talk 15:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, the threshold for inclusion of speculation in Wikipedia is some sort of demonstrated widespread (not necessarily majority) belief, or the opinion of a person of note (some sort of subject matter expert). Otherwise we're in the awkward position – as an encyclopedia – of publishing statements like "There has been speculation that the Moon is made of green cheese", supported by a link to Joe Random Blogger's personal webpage. The use of the word 'speculation' doesn't give us a free pass on the requirement for reliable sources, nor does it allow us to escape WP:WEIGHT. If the participants on the page are unsure about the application of WP:RS, WP:V, etc. to this particular issue, I encourage you to make use of a Request for Comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That is why I said the main thing is that the source needs to be reliable. MythSearcher^talk 10:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In any event, I note that the protection of the article page has now expired. This is not a license to resume any sort of edit warring on that page, and I expect that contentious changes will continue to be discussed here on the talk page. I am pleased to see everyone discussing things calmly, but I caution that the warnings I made above still stand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there's still some disagreement about how to proceed with this section ([1], [2]). I expect that the involved parties will discuss the matter on the talk page to come to an understanding. Remember, the third part of WP:BRD is the most important. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As suggested above, the templates were allowed to stay in the article by those of us contesting their inclusion so that the lobby that believes the article needs to be rewritten may facilitate that goal. There has been zero results from this effort; GundamsRus' comment on my talk page further elucidates the lack of effort towards cleaning up the article by the parties claiming it requires cleanup. TenOfAllTrades, since you seem to be of the persuasion that we do not "use the talk page," I suggest you review the backlog from the above before I waste anyone's time rehashing what has gone before. We have, in fact, used the talk page - if you mean "arrive at consensus", we've done that too, and some editors have rejected that. MalikCarr (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I see where Mythsearcher made a proposal for a temporary timetable for the tags, and I see where you and Jtrainer responded with responses that do not really seem to be afirmations of the proposed temporary tags and I see no 'agreement' of any type to this proposal by either myself or AMIB. I also see other statements by you and Jtrainer that also seem to indicate that you have no intention of allowing any edits by AMIB or myself. I am sorry to have misunderstood your intentions. Being the holiday season, I am not going to promise that there will be a proposal by me anytime soon. GundamsRus 207.69.137.25 (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculation about US release on GML

Jtrainer, can you provide a link to the post(S) within that source that speculates about US release. The ones I read only speculated about whether / who on the Conan show was Gundam fan. But it was an awkward layout and I may have missed the comment(s) speculating about US release. If you or someone else cannot point out which post(s) comment about potential US release, then the article needs to be reverted to a version that does not claim the posts were speculating about US release. GundamsRus 207.69.137.11 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

i went back to the source and found the switch to thread view. There is no comment in this thread about speculation of US release, so I have changed the article to not be claiming inaccurate statements from the source. If there is some other thread that makes the speculation between conan show and US release, that will need it's own citation.GundamsRus (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Conan from the model kit

Malikcarr - it seems to be your claim that it (the image in the 'bumper') is made from/based on the __model kit__ - What support do you have to prove that?GundamsRus (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's like saying Will Smith's character had some kind of Audi in that awful movie I, Robot - you look at it and it's obvious. I encourage you to find an image of an old 1/144 HG Gundam Mk. II in unmodified condition; they're indisputably the same. I'd snap a photo of the model myself (I was able to snag one at the SDCC in 2004, lucky me), but my camera is presently borked. MalikCarr (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Until you have a _source_ to _verify_ the claim that it was the __model kit__ and not a shot from the movie or a plushie a fan had made or any of a number of other potential (but perhaps unlikely) sources, you shouldnt be removing the {fact} tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GundamsRus (talk • contribs) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Should I find a citation from a reliable source to say the sky is blue? This isn't a remotely debatable claim by any stretch of the imagination - read a model catalog sometime. MalikCarr (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt it is a model kit, but saying it is THE HG kit is abit too much and hard to source that it is discon. I changed it to model, that is sufficient. MythSearcher^talk 10:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)