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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

::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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zeta Gundam was not officially available in North American distribution until 2004.^{[citation needed]}

The Mk. II appeared on the Conan O'Brien show in 2000.^{[citation needed]}

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[1] about a potential US release. Regardless, Zeta Gundam was not officially released in the North American market by Bandai until 2004.^[2]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. MythSearcher^talk 14:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]