Talk:Gundam (fictional robot)

Look

So hows it looking now? Diablo-D3 09:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hate the new changes. The words are way to spread out in the system/armament listings. The pictures look odd and out of place for a lot, the most obvious being the Gundam Development Project mobile suits. In my opinion it looked better before your formatting changes. The only change I'd make is put the system/armament listings back to the way they were before your refit. User-Name 16:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, basically, move all the images right again? I'm going to be trying to fix the weirdness with the tables too, but I'm leaving them. Diablo-D3 05:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actucally I really just hate the tables. It looks very disorganized. I perferred using the <br> tags. For example, look at the GP01 data. It's way too spaced out IMO. Looks very bad. User-Name 00:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hrm, bleh, I'll rollback the tables then, but I'll also have to move all images right. Diablo-D3 19:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Blue Destiny Units

Personally, I think we should get rid of the Blue Destiny Gundams because their uncanon, video game spawn Gundams. We should have only canon RX-78 Gundams, which means removing them. Now if someone wants to set up a Blue Destiny page, be my guest. More Gundam, the better. But it should also be in the right places.

I don't agree with that. Being game original unit doesn't mean they aren't uncanon MS. If we got to remove them, it would be more make sense to creat new article for whole RX-79 model. L-Zwei 07:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wait a second, video game spawn gundams? The Blue Destinies came from a manga, if I remember properly.

Yes, the BD series also have a Manga featuring them. And guess what, the manga is called Blue Destiny. But it is spawned as video game before the story is written into manga.

Also Bandai went ahead and made official 1/144 HGUC model kits on the 3 blue destiny mobilesuits. It was also featured later in the game Gundam: Enoucnters in space, inwhich bandai evenhad a team animate parts of the story into anime sequences between missions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.60.21 (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

MythSearcher 08:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

RX-78-7

I have added RX-78-7 and RX-78-8 which appeared in MSV and M-MSV. I know that RX-78-8 never have a picture but RX-78-7, FA-78-3 and FHA-78-3 should have.

However, I cannot find decent quality pictures for these units. If anyone have them, please upload and modify the post.

MAHQ.net got some picture, but it is not very clear.

http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/mscollection/rx-78-7.htm

Thank you

MythSearcher 08:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

RX-78 Gundam Casval Rem Deikun Custom

In the Video game Gihren's Greed, there is an RX-78 C.A. built after Char Aznable took over control from the Zabi's. The unit got the design of RX-78-2 but the inside is totally Zeon technology.

There is also a Titans version of RX-78 in the same game.

not to say that these should be added in here, but just a sidenote on other RX-78s

Also, the RX-78GT4 series should be added in here, too. If anyone got detailed description and pictures of it, it would be nice.

MythSearcher

RX-78-8?

From what basis is there an 8th Gundam? I looked through MAHQ.net's MSV and M-MSV sections and found nothing on it.

Try reading the original MSV, there are no picture of it but it is said to have been planned after the 7th Gundam. However, even 7th is incomplete and therefore no further development is continued. So it is the legendary 8th Gundam that never, and never will appear in any of the series.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%83%80%E3%83%A0_(%E6%9E%B6%E7%A9%BA%E3%81%AE%E5%85%B5%E5%99%A8)

In MSV,(not M-MSV)

放映当時はガンダムは映像に現れた1機しか存在しないという設定であったが、後に小説版『機動戦士ガンダム』においてアムロの搭乗したガンダムは2号機という設定が生まれ、みのり書房発行の雑誌「OUT」別冊『宇宙駆ける戦士たち GUNDAM CENTURY』にてさらにその設定は発展した。そして『モビルスーツバリエーション』 (MSV) の誕生によりアニメ準備稿からプロトタイプガンダム（1号機）が、小説版からG-3ガンダム（3号機）が生まれ、さらに全部で8機が製造されたという設定になった。RX-78という型式番号の後の数字には機体の仕様（バージョン）の意味が持たされたが、後に機体の製造番号の意味に変更され、RX-78-2ならば、RX-78シリーズの2番目に製造された機体という意味となった。G-3ガンダム以降の機体はMSVではRX-78初期試作型（一説にRX-78-2）の4-8号機という文字のみの設定であったが、バンダイ出版発行の雑誌「SDクラブ」で連載された『大河原邦男コレクション』 (M-MSV) にて4-7号機が再設定され、独自の型式番号が与えられている。

We can see that there is a documented official saying about having RX-78-8. However, no further settings are given.

MythSearcher 02:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Saving this article.

OK - I'm not a gundam expert or fan - but to save the article I suggest the following -

1) ramp up the real world cultural relevence section.

2) Remove most of the images

3) Remove most of the stats.

Over on the AFD someone mentioned the X-wing page - maybe people should look at that as a model.

--Charlesknight 12:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and the development of the Gundam should be described more in terms of the series they were in - not in terms of the events of the series - if you follow me. --Charlesknight 12:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Objection on the X-wing as a model. That page is just as bad as this one, it does not really have any real world references other than the Star Wars literature that non-fans cannot understand. The only reference link is starwars.com stuff, and definitely a primary source, not a secondary one. It requires even more clean up than this one. I would suggest using the featured article Link (The Legend of Zelda) as a model instead. MythSearcher^talk 14:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article looks a lot better however the history is still far too in-universe, it should be rewritten to talk about which versions appeared in which series (maybe chronologically - maybe a different way - I don't know much about the series). --Charlesknight 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this statement. The history segment to me refers to the original designer (in the real world's) construction of the mobile suit design during the planning of the manga/anime/novels. Do you think we need to clarify that Tomino was the mechanical designer for the show, not in the show? Kyaa the Catlord 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No I mean I don't get any sense what is a reference to a character or a series and no real indication to when various versions appeared in the real world. Maybe the fictional history (maybe could be called appearance history) could be something like follows:

Series name: In this series, the original Gundam model XXX appeared. This series covered the war about the right to grow bannanas on the moon.

This was followed by:

Series name:

or something like that and all of the series names would be links back to the series articles?

--Charlesknight 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

ah - I see the confusion - I'm refering to the "in-fiction" history. --Charlesknight 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I gotcha! :P My Gundamfu isn't up to this, I'm only a casual fan. Would creating a timeline which marks the appearance of the mobile suits and which series they belong to be considered OR? This would probably work well, if its allowable. (I honestly believe this information was in the specs section that was removed earlier but I don't remember.) Kyaa the Catlord 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well as long it as it has the real world dates that the series aired and then the fictional date they occured - I don't see a problem? Any lurkers want to pipe up with problems? ideas? --Charlesknight 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I already put first appearance serie for each model, with link, episode number (if available), specify which media the serie is (TV serie, OVA, model kit/original design, manga or video game) along with real world designer (with link) and if it got redesign for different media, I also add that. It may be my mistake to put it at the end of each model section instead of starting part, but it doesn't matter anymore, all of them are deleted. *sigh*

Not that I have anything with TheFarix, I known he done it to save this article. This whole mess just made me depress. L-Zwei 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey neat, Japan issued a stamp with this particular mobile suit on it! [1] Kyaa the Catlord 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Get it in there! (what are the copyright issues with displaying stamps?) --Charlesknight 18:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I know the website that it is linked is one dedicated to stamp collection and bears warnings about printing them out. :P Kyaa the Catlord 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do not need to have the actual picture up there, state the printing and issue date of the stamp in the article, put a little link next to it linking to this source, puff, we got a sourced reference of its significance. I will be doing that right now. MythSearcher^talk 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Got some cool figures

Monthly Bandai Making Journal, July 1988, we have some sales figure.

Scale Model price Units sold

---

1980

1/144 Gundam 300yen 5850k

1/100 Gundam 700yen 3060k

---

1981

1/60 Gundam 2000yen 620k

1/144 B‧Gundam(韓國製) 300yen 280k

1/100 B‧Gundam(韓國製) 700yen 50k

1/72 Mechanic Gundam 2500yen 250k

---

1982

1/100 Realtype Gundam 700yen 610k

I have numbers for other models, too. MythSearcher^talk 04:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Add everything back!

Just kidding, I just add trimmed-down info of other variants back to article. Hope it isn't too crufty now. I think few of them shall be expand more, like Alex which is a center mech of 0080 OVA. L-Zwei 13:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Request pagemove

The new page name is slightly misleading. I base this on two grounds.

1. An article titled "Gundam (mobile suit)" seems to me like the midpoint between the main Gundam article and articles such as those dealing with each 'series' of Gundams on their own (Universal Century Gundam suits, After Colony Gundam suits,... etc).
2. The article as it stands is solely about the RX-78 line of suits, which is one type of Gundam amongst many types of Gundams.

I'd like to suggest moving this article to a title that better reflects the contents of this article... something along the lines of RX-78 Gundam. I'm incredibly cautious about doing such a move without other's thoughs, considering the recent AfD of Doom and subsequent overhaul to a far superior article. So this is just me getting a though out in the air.

Ideas? Comments? -- saberwyn 08:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on moving it to another name, but not RX-78 Gundam(Which this page was moved from) per the discussion in WP:GUNDAM. Maybe there should be a page called Gundam type mobile suits made, or this page renamed to Gundam (RX-78 series) or Gundam (Mobile Suit Gundam). either way, since this name is used in so many places, it is very hard to have a name that is short and not confusing... Maybe discussing in the WP:GUNDAM talk page will be better. MythSearcher^talk 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

keep the name

I believe the people asking for deletion or change of this article are anomaly to the sanity. this mobile suit is the main design that has been followed to create and design new mobile suits. this is the SOURCE. this is the ORIGIN of the "ICON". this is not a series of RX-78 etc. This is THE Quintessential mobile suit. as for discussion why not remove bible and other religous stuff on wiki or you guys may also delete jesus page saying that " hey most people have heard the story anyhow...." i mean , get a life. go to a shrink. get some morals, get a check up. ( in the movie "Day after tomorrow" the guy saved the old bible book just because it was a record, a record of human essence. that guy had a good soul ) if he was a deletionist, bible would have been the first to go in the fire.

Danraz 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I am for adding pictures, however it should be more organized. I mean, the featured article of Link (Zelda) got a bunch of pics, Z Gundam and ZZ Gundam got a bunch of pics. Having a lot pictures is not the main problem here, not having enough out of universe description is. The pictures should be tagged only onto units with notable sections, and really need to have a clearer description on how it was obtained. (Which I can tell by the short description but hey, it needs to be fool proved and deletionist proved) MythSearcher^talk 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing with the Double Zeta is that most of those pictures are for actual notable variants that appeared in the series. Going by that, I'd say the most notable of the pictures he put up were those of the Alex. The Prototype Gundam and G-3 are cosmetically near-identical in the line art, save for different color schemes, and I'm not 100% sure if video game variants are that notable.

The other main issue is the lack of real life info, which, when combined with what most non-fans may see as fancruft, would put this article on the chopping block again. Personally, I enjoy said cruft (seeing as I'm a fan), but there's a lot of Wikipedians trying to totally legitimize the site. I think someone needs to find some information on the Alex. It might be difficult, because it seems like the later Gundam-types don't really have as much real life background as the original Gundam, the Mk. II, or Zeta.

...There's also also the problem of fair use rationale, which does not seem to be explained of those uploaded pictures' descriptions. Most of the pictures Jeffpiatt has uploaded just say, "Oh, this is fair use," and do not explain how it is, which means they'll probably be deleted by a 'bot if the rationale isn't explained. Maikeru 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is one of the problems we have to deal with. Although those units are not as notable as the RX-78-2, they surely addresses the notability of RX-78-2 with their very existence. The article just need to have a good enough section to reflect that.(Best with references) MythSearcher^talk 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

the gundam seen in evolve 15 was a raicle change from he orignal line art if anyhing he verients need to be put in a gallery to keep them organized.

• 
  RX-78NT1 Gundam NT1
• 
  RX-78NT1 Gundam NT1 With Chobham armour

rx-78-2 as shown in gundam evolve 15

also i would like topu the atual line art in the infobox to replace the simmons art.Jeffpiatt 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Evolve 15 Gundam design is radically different, but it's a one-time change for a 15 minute short meant to show what First would look like if it were made now rather than in 1979. It would be nice if there were actual text to go with it to explain the total change in its design, who did it, etc. etc. etc. As for the Kunio Okawara artwork, I don't see a problem with it. However, it still needs copyright information (1979-2007 Sotsu Agency-Sunrise Co. Ltd.) and fair use rationale (i.e. a description of where it came from and why it's being used -- you have the first part at least, in that this is the same lineart displayed on GundamOfficial.com). As for the other MSV's -- like I said, the only one I think is worth noting is the NT-1 Alex. Why I say that is because the Alex was the first animated variation of the RX-78 (as neither the prototype Gundam nor the G-3 have been seen in animated form) as well as the first major RX-78 variation not designed by Okawara, but rather by Yutaka Izubuchi. RX-78-6 Mudrock is a video game canon design, so personally I wouldn't give it much of a mention outside of a short one-sentence blurb about how it was used by the main antagonist of the game Zeonic Front. Maikeru 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

the rx-78-2 and the two images of the alex are from the GundamOfficial.com site. the murdock images and the two msv types are from mahq. and the g-3 does appear in a animated form during the gundam the ride the shuttle you are rideing goes past the g3 in combat also in the novel amaro does trash the gundam and receves the g3 as a replacement. the evolve version image was off the official site. also the image of the rx-78 in it's current for seems redundent with the info box image of the 1979 gundam line art.Jeffpiatt 04:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

MAHQ is not an official website, and the pictures used in it have copyright problems as well, therefore the G06 pictures you uploaded cannot be used here. If there is a video game promotion poster picture, use it, if not, don't. Also, pictures from the official website are not public domain pictures, we must state a fair use rationale before we can use them. Since we had a picture from a fan who released the rights for it to be used here and the picture is pretty accurate, we really do NOT have any fair use rationale saying the official website pictures are the only picture we have to use to illustrate how the unit looks like. On the other hand, the close in picture in the Gundam page is a much better picture to suit the fair use rationale. MythSearcher^talk 05:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'll allow me some snark, given that I don't live in Japan, how the heck am I supposed to know much of anything about that Gundam amusement ride? The only detail about that particular ride I remember was that it featured a pair of original GM pilots in slightly modified GM's. Um, besides the point, Mythsearcher is right: MAHQ is not really a very good place to get that lineart. The main reason the Simmons artwork is used is because it's public domain, also as Mythsearcher said. It would be best to revert back to the Simmons artwork in the infobox, IMO. Maikeru 06:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The ride is constered one of the few apperences of the g-3 gundam other than the novel and it's msv model kit story. we see more of this gundam than the prototype gundam witch may get one toy every few years.Jeffpiatt 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it appeared in the ride... And? It's not necessary to elaborate on every appearance of every Mobile Suit (and its variants), especially if it's something most of us have not seen, and will probably never see. The novelization is one thing, because it was available in America (and has since been rereleased by Del Ray), as is talking about The Origin, which was being distributed by Viz and is now a semi-regular feature in Newtype USA. Somehow, I think that a short cameo in an interactive ride that only people living in Japan or whom visited Japan while it was still open is not really as noteworthy as either of those other works. I was tempted to get rid of the Origin info in the RX-78-1 blurb as well, but it has a little more notability than a defunct ride, IMO. Maikeru 16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it kinda add notability to RX-78 as a whole if mentioned it was seen in an amusement park. But definitely not under the variation section, it really helps nothing because deletionist will not read those sections. Make it seen on other parts that an RX-78 appeared in an amusement park ride, don't mention which one is it. For the G-3, it is pretty much tagged as the second mobile suit Amuro used during the OYW in Japan, people know that he used the Magnetic Coating Version of RX-78-2 in the Anime, yet in the novel, Super Robot Wars series and various setting books, the MC ver. of RX-78 is simply RX-78-3, the 3rd version of RX-78. Remember the numbering of RX-78 is not the number of what unit it is, but the version number of it? MythSearcher^talk 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/Those_Who_Are_Silly this site has some verients listed that came from the model kits can we work some of them in to this article like the gudams alternate paint job and the replica gundam.

I don't think so. First of all, I must bluntly state that the article currently it moving back towards the in-universe style, and is highly not suitable for wiki, and will be very hard to stop deletionists listing the article for deletion. Secondly, it would be nice to use an official picture, but from a source that just repaint the official pictures? Definitely not. Also, the article should strive to mainly state what is the impact of Gundam to the real world, not just where it appeared. For example, the RX-78-2 obviously spawned all of the other Gundam Mobile suits, that makes it extremely notable to mention, but G-3 and prototype Gundam that no matter how a non-fan see it looks just like the same as RX-78-2? I don't think they are notable enough to have pictures. In fact, we should just state that they look exactly the same with different colours(maybe also the colour scheme used) and that's it. MythSearcher^talk 09:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No way. I cut out most of the added info from the G-3 and Prototype Gundam blurbs, because they aren't even notable in-universe, limiting it to a short description of its function in canon and its color scheme. I took out the NT-1 lineart as well, but it should probably be added again. Several of these I immediately recognize as fan-made recolors, not official ones, anyway. Fanon is baaaad. Maikeru 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A picture of the 1:1 scale model RX-78-2 that was constructed (and subsequently taken down before I got to see it) should be placed on this page. I can't think of anything more real-world relevant than them making a 1:1 scale model of a anime mecha. On top of this, that subject should also be lengthened due to its significance. A picture of the RX-78-2 from the original series should also be posted in the first informational box that details it. Preferably a picture from the series itself, although that would be hard to place within guidelines. As nice as it sounds to put pictures of the reskinned version, the original is the one that this page should be most focused on. We have a picture of the Alex in here, so we might as well throw those in as well. Traece (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

info on varients

most of the rx-78 verients do have some impact on the franchise even though they never appear in animated form. the 7th gundam inspired the rx-78 gp03 shown on 0083 while a unit in gundam sentinal is also simular to the look of this gundam.Jeffpiatt 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that saying that the 7th Gundam inspired GP-03 is conjecture, not fact. As for the Gundam Sentinel thing, that's also conjecture. To a non-fan, most of the variants have no merit. Since Wikipedia is being held to a higher standard than a fansite, there needs to be an emphasis on the things that do have merit, especially in real life. Maikeru 07:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the 7th Gundam was speculated to be the base design of [[MSA-0011 S Gundam#MSA-0011[Bst] S Gundam Booster Unit Type Plan 303E "Deep Striker"|S Gundam Plan 303E]] Deep Striker, it is not the case since the latter was published before RX-78-7 design. The book (Gundam Wars III)with Plan 303E in it was published in 1988, which is same time as CCA and thus predate Kunio Okawara's MS Collection(1989~1990). On the other hand, this is much more real life linkage between the units, I suggest adding them. It is not information on a fansite, it is published material just fresh out of the oven. Since the Gundam Fix Figuration #0034 GP03S Weapon System just released in Japan, a lot of magazines were digging out these historical stuff. MythSearcher^talk 08:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On another note, the RX-78 GP02 was mentioned very briefly on this article as having been a breach of the Antarctic Treaty. Since the Antarctic Treaty page stated that it was in fact not a breach of the Antarctic Treaty, I took the liberty of removing that sentence entirely. I'm putting this on the talk page mainly as a reminder to remind everyone that the Antarctic Treaty ends at the end of the One Year War. Events succeeding 0080 involving the use of nuclear weapons aren't breaches of the Antarctic Treaty, nor the Granada whatever-it-was-called. Traece (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gundam firefighting.jpg

Image:Gundam firefighting.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 00:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture section issues

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

As part of MHI Jobcon 2005 (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Job Convention 2005), a recruiting event of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd, seminars were held in six Japanese cities. The topic of these seminars was "Mobile Suit Gundam Development Story"; which indicated the requirements and processes that Mitsubishi would have to implement if the company had been required to build an RX-78 mobile suit. <ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.mhi-ir.jp/news/sec1/200502044313.html | title = MHI Jobcon 2005 | date = [[4 February]] [[2005]] | language = Japanese | accessdate = 2007-01-11}}</ref>

The source on this is dead, and I'm guessing it was a MHI press release anyway. Do we have a source covering this event, instead of MHI promoting it themselves? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Gundam Evolve

The RX-78-2 Gundam has been the featured mobile suit in two of the Gundam Evolve short films. The first Evolve short "RX-78-2 Gundam" featured it in a limited capacity, instead focusing on its pilot Amuro Ray, who reminisced about the previous battles he had gone through while waiting to sortie. The second short film to feature the Gundam is the 15th installment of the Evolve series, a remake of the episode "Newtype Challia Bull" from the original series. Instead of basing the CGI models on the original line art from the series, the Gundam was completely redesigned to fit a more modernized aesthetic. The other main mobile weapons in the short — the GM, Guncannon, and Challia Bull's Braw Bro — were also redesigned to a considerable degree.

I have no idea where to put this, but it doesn't belong in the pop culture section, as it's a Sunrise Gundam production. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Model Sales

According to Katoki Hajime commenting the poles from Newtype (magazine), as quoted in Newtype magazine serialized Seed Club 4 koma short comic series, as of 26th August, 2005, the MG RX-78-2 Gundam Ver. 1.5 ranked TOP1 in Gundam Traditional MG because it is the best valued model if one wants to buy the original Gundam; and the MG RX-78-5 Gundam G05 ranked TOP1 in Easiest to build MG since its appearance in various games and Gundam Ace magazine, a lot of people liked the unit and although the design looks like the original Gundam, it does not carry the old stinkiness(古臭) feeling and is modeled specially for new model builders, gaining it fame in an easy building model kit category.<ref>''Seed Club 4 coma'', page 78 & 79</ref>

This is horribly confusingly written; I'm having trouble figuring out what the factual claim is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

While running the date delinker script, I noticed that this article is using three competing date format. The first two are the DMY format and the MDY format. The third is the ISO format, which should be converted to one of the other two. DMY and ISO date format is mostly used in the references as MDY format is used in the body of the article. WP:DATE does state that the date format in the article should be consistent through the article between DMY or MDY. I'll have to do a bit of checking to see which format was used by the articles first significant contributor. I'll also note that most other Gundam related articles use the MDY format. However, the importance of consistency with the other sub-articles isn't as pertinent as it is between the top level articles. See Talk:Gundam#Date formats for previous discussion on this topic. —Farix (t | c) 03:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this edit, it appears that I'm mostly responsible for the trifecta of date formats. There were no other dates in the article previous to my edit. —Farix (t | c) 03:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Gundam (fictional robot). There's a clear consensus to move and this is the best supported option. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Gundam (mobile suit) → Gundam (mecha) – The current disambiguation is not suggested by MOS:INUNIVERSE. "Mobile suit" is an in-universe terminology for what is commonly known as a mecha, and the latter would be more clear to the typical reader who is not a Gundam fan. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Gundam (mecha)" is too ambiguous and can refer to the series itself. Which I imagine is why the article is at its current title in the first place. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Your argument does not make sense. How is Gundam (mobile suit) not ambiguous if that is the case? People could confuse it with Mobile Suit Gundam. If consensus agrees that it's truly too easy to confuse, then it should be changed to Gundam (fictional mecha) to align with the naming of Category:Fictional mecha._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Gundam (fictional manned robot) is too long, but completely clear. I think (with copy-editing of the lede) mecha should be fine as the disambiguator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is it too long? But agree it's completely clear. Still unconvinced that mecha is recognisable outside of a niche of readers. Andrewa (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

• Move to Gundam (fictional robot). This is the one name that seems to have general support above. Andrewa (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - While I still prefer (mecha) or (fictional mecha) per Category:Fictional mecha, I am also fine with this one as the minimum necessary to disambiguate if consensus thinks that "mecha" is too obscure a disambiguation for non anime fans._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support to Gundam (fictional robot). —usernamekiran(talk) 18:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Relisting comment: Neither the current disambiguator mobile suit nor the proposed one mecha are remotely recognisable to me, and I'm of the opinion that most readers would have the same problem. Is there a better one? Perhaps fictional robot? Andrewa (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that, as there is a person inside the thing, "robot" is technically incorrect as a disambiguator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: @Andrewa: There is literally no other way to describe it other than a mecha. That is the specific term for a giant, piloted robot. It we used "robot" then it would imply it did not have a pilot. Ultimately just because you are unfamiliar with the concept, doesn't mean it's not unsuitable, as there is an entire article that explains the concept at mecha and it's a pop cultural term that a large number of people know (albeit in the more slang form of "giant robot")._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting... but the term is still recognisable only to a fairly restricted audience, I'm a fan of H.G.Wells and Avatar (film) and have watched all the Star Wars movies and it was new to me. A mecha even appeared in a Modesty Blaise comic strip story arc in The Sun newspaper, so that must have been 1988 at the latest and so mecha are not restricted to strict Sci-Fi.

I still ask, is there a title (perhaps a descriptive phrase) that is recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent (WP:AT of course)? Andrewa (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at robot and robotics and by our definitions you're quite right, it's robotic but not a robot. But that isn't necessarily a show-stopper, French toast is neither French nor toast.

Perhaps Gundam (manned robot) might be a possibility? The article itself currently says in part The RX-78-2 Gundam is a fictional manned robot... (my emphasis). Manned robot is currently a redlink but could possible redirect to mecha. Andrewa (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa:There are non fictional manned robots, so I would probably prefer "fictional robot" if mecha is not a possibility. Mecha are still robots._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

If mecha are still robots, then perhaps fictional robot is a possible disambiguator, or even just robot. Either is more recognisable than mecca or mobile suit IMO. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, Gundam (fictional robot) would be a perfectly fine, if not as precise descriptor. So if you think that's preferable, I would not oppose it. Mechas are not just robotic, they are robots that are human controlled from within. You could make the argument that power armor is merely robotic, but mecha walk and move under their own power._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with fictional robot but just robot is better, and manned robot is best IMO. We don't need to put a complete description of the topic in the title, just an unambiguous and recognisable title. But robot is arguably misleading, as it's not capable of independent action. Fictional doesn't add anything necessary, but does no great damage. Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO, solely "robot" would induce too much confusion with the series. "Fictional" as an adjective makes it clear that we're talking about an individual robot and not a show about robots._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge from Gundam Mk-II

Gundam the robot is notable - but we don't need two articles about this. Fanwikis can have dozen articles about all the different gundam subtypes, but there is no evidence they are actually notable as separately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)