Talk:Cultural impact of Gundam

Merger proposal

I propose that Cultural impact of Gundam be merged back into Gundam.

Currently, the page is just a collection of random trivia and news reports about Gundam in real world, it lacks any coverage from secondary sources about an actual cultural impact, thus it fails to prove it even exists. What we need is an article that truly, directly and explicitely covers the cultural impact (with reception, sale numbers, legacy, influences, etc) and not an accumulation of trivia unrelated to each other and that WP would try to pass as proof of a so-called "cultural impact" (so there could also be an issue of WP:OR here).

Though I'm not saying Gundam has no cultural impact, we don't have any element that shows the article could evolve beyond the trivia mess it is now. A search on Google Books yields almost no result that could be used to build significant external coverage for a stand-alone page, though we can certainly find a few things that would fit the more general Gundam page: Gundam + cultural, Gundam + "cultural impact".

Per WP:TRIVIA, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Per WP:GNG, "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content."

These facts may be just fine in a broad article about Gundam, but not as a stand-alone article. If these take too much space in the main article, WP:AVOIDSPLIT tells us to trim any excessive trivia instead of splitting. My opinion is that content here should be put back into Gundam (and trimmed) until it evolves into a coherent and focused enough coverage, with enough secondary sources to back it up and build real prose instead of an accumulation of trivia.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your entire premise of this merger is incorrect. First, this is a work in progress, I split it off to clean it up and prepare for expansion and get the franchise to par for GA. Cultural impact is not trivia. Trivia is defined as "Insignificant or inessential matters; trifles." I do not think a life-size Gundam is "trivial" when it draws 4 million visitors. That Gundam has inspired and been used in homage to military projects, space development, car manufacturers and the simple fact that it has persisted as a major cultural identity for 30 years. This is not "trivial", its not indiscriminate and Gundam clearly meets GNG.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Gundam meets GNG but does its cultural impact meet GNG?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, you first mistake is that on Wikipedia, you don't "split it off to clean it up and prepare for expansion". per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, you clean up and trim first, and if there is enough coverage for a stand-alone article you split. Your second mistake is that you don't correctly understand Wikipedia terminology, when I say "trivia" I mean " lists of isolated/miscellaneous information" as per WP:TRIVIA, not necessarily "Insignificant or inessential matters". Your third mistake is that you didn't take the time to read my comment correctly. I'm not saying any of these facts or trivia should not be included somewhere on WP, I'm saying that they can't have their own article because it is a disorganized list of isolated trivia and not a properly structured article with a clear focus. As I said, this is a collection of various facts about Gundam and real-life, however there is no clear definition of a so-called "cultural impact". It is indiscriminate because there is no link between posters, stamps, the JSSDF, etc. And as Ryulong said, this is not the Gundam article, this is the "Cultural impact" article, and per WP:GNG, "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." i consider that calling this list of trivia a "cultural impact" is fundamentally original research without secondary sources specifically referring to it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And if you claim you're going to "expand" the article, then please provide an outline for how exactly you will proceed and with what sources, so that we can better see whether this is going anywhere.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk to yourselves because I'm not participating in the wiki-drama anymore, I'm going to be improving articles. This discussion is as non-sensical as the "Timeline of" as not being a list, and running afoul of PLOT. Now excuse me, I got work to do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the lack of participation, despite a merge tag on Gundam and a notice at WT:ANIME since August, I'm gonna assume agreement from the silent majority (also counting support from Ryulong) and BOLDly proceed with the merge. I note that the only objector has completely abandoned the page (both the article and the discussion), and a related AfD has thoroughly invalidated his editing practices regarding splits from Gundam.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your bold merge was undone, I've put a lot of new work in and this clearly meets N/GNG for a stand alone. Stop edit warring. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No this doesn't. As I've explained before, this is an indiscriminate collection of unrelated trivia that doesn't meet GNG because there is no independent coverage on the topic itself, ie the so-called cultural impact of Gundam. All of the sources are primary accounts of individual trivia and not secondary sources about the topic.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:SIZE and WP:GNG. This easily passes GNG, we have Museums and Government projects relating to Gundam. I disagree with the references being trival. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Could you point out the "significant coverage from secondary sources" requires to pass GNG ? I'm not saying the facts themselves are trivial, I'm saying the article is only made of WP:TRIVIA that doesn't result in a proper article, but in a collection of isolated facts. And per WP:PAPER, WP:SIZE is not to be used as a trump card to violate policy. Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:GNG and WP:RRULE. The point in having this article to exist is that Gundam is fairly recognized by the normal community. Merging back into the original Gundam article would be troublesome for both our WikiProject(s) and the readers due to it's large coverage of the subject. What makes you think that this Article can't be accepted by the community? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you point out the "significant coverage from secondary sources" requires to pass GNG ? I'm not saying the facts themselves are trivial, I'm saying the article is only made of WP:TRIVIA that doesn't result in a proper article, but in a collection of isolated facts. And per WP:PAPER, WP:SIZE is not to be used as a trump card to violate policy.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SS, WP:GNG, WP:SIZE. Page covers the impact of the long running franchise in popular culture including repeated use in governments; including real-world military considerations and national recognition by state entities. Academic interest and commercial interests reason in the ubiquity of Gundam. Aside from the museum, and the specialty magazines or the "Char custom" products from Nintendo DS to numerous cars and dozens of crossovers. Perhaps the most enduring impact is from the 1980s and 1990s in which Gundam has been cited numerous times as an important factor in the development of the otaku subculture and represented the creation of the an otaku industry against the counter-culture movement. This page lacks a good amount of coverage, but the premise and current form show that Gundam is a cultural phenomenon worthy of note. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gundam (mobile suit)

There seems to be a decent amount of overlap between the two, so the cultural impact article should take in anything real world that doesn't amount to trivia, and the robot should be described in the main article or Amuro Ray. TTN (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This is wider and the discussion was already closed as no merge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh, you're thinking of the wrong article. I'm talking about merging the real world info from the Gunam article into this, not merging this back into the series article. TTN (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Gundam is more noted than Amuro Ray itself. Your endeavor is on good faith, but I cannot agree with this proposal, 3 nations have built tributes and two were full size models for a museum and park. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The Gundam article has more than enough notability for a standalone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultural impact of Gundam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005153659/http://game.people.com.cn/BIG5/48602/48968/7304425.html to http://game.people.com.cn/BIG5/48602/48968/7304425.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cultural impact of Gundam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202123729/http://www.mod.go.jp/trdi/infomation/happyou/Program.pdf to http://www.mod.go.jp/trdi/infomation/happyou/Program.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309182804/http://www.jp-network.japanpost.jp/notification/pressrelease/2011/document/3001_08_04_811031401.pdf to http://www.jp-network.japanpost.jp/notification/pressrelease/2011/document/3001_08_04_811031401.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)