Talk:Real robot

message: We don't need to summarize the Eva units on this page, because we already have an Evangelion page.  Better to just link it. 192.91.173.42 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone else notice how both the statement "Votoms is viewed as the peak of real robot anime." and that the "Famous producers of the Genre" are the same people? Can we get a bit more neutrality into this article please? Also, I don't care if you have 12 articles citing how something is viewed as the "peak" of real robot anime, those are opinion pieces. It doesn't make it something fit for an encyclopaedia. 
69.165.139.12 (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a reliable source stating otherwise and you are free to add it in to make the article more neutral.  I found the source stating Votoms, and Votoms it is, no matter how I dislike the series myself.  This is neutrality, listing all major view points.  Per WP:NPOV, this is what the encyclopedia needs, not ditching all opinion views.  Opinions from wiki editors are to be ditched, not published critics. MythSearchertalk 06:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

text: BTW, those are 2 different sources stated by 2 different companies and reporters, how did you find them to be the same people? MythSearchertalk 08:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The burden was met by that non-English source. If you want to challenge the claim or the source’s reliability, the burden is on you to check the source yourself, or to request a quote from it. Wikipedia has no restriction on source language, but if you have a suitable English-language source to use instead, that would be great. Especially if you can make the edit without making unreasonable demands of other volunteers. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: I think we need to explicitly state somewhere in the article that "Real Robot" doesn't mean that the robots are literally designs that would be functional and practical in real life, since very few "Real Robots" would be. 71.203.209.0 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the description of what a real robot is, "The genre contains robots that are powered by conventional power sources and weapons that could be explained by real world science, and these robots used ranged weapons(especially guns and cannons) and speed to survive battle situations.", is partially inaccurate -- while real-world power sources and weapons may show up, and most real robot shows probably use technology that would fall within the unfortunately fuzzy boundaries of "hard sci-fi", they don't all (Gundam, IIRC, relies on Helium-3 fusion working differently than it does in the real world), and a better qualification is, as the Super Robot page notes, "a mecha portrayed as a relatively common item, used by military organizations in the same manner as tanks or aircraft." 76.99.183.84 (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While Super Robots are usually more or less Super Heroes, Real Robots fill military roles. If we use the definition "explained by in-universe science", Mazinger Z would also be a Real Robot. We get to know about the alloy it uses and its power source, it's built by a scientist etc., yet no one would argue against it being purely a Super Robot (unless, of course, they are trying to stir up a discussion or something). It's still not a definition you can use and apply on any series or game and easily see what fits where, but it's the best definition I've seen. --193.11.218.215 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The Gundam He3 fusion works exactly like the real world Muon catalysis fusion does, only it is catalyzed by a fictional particle that is longer live than the Muon.  It is perfectly matching with Hard sci-fi on the terms of having a logical reasoning to solve problems.  The soft part is that most of the reasoning for using giant robots in Real Robot series are not all that logical.(Like in Gundam, the MS's AMBAC is for space use, yet you see a lot of MS are used on Earth) MythSearchertalk 08:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Real" Robots

message: I'm not knowledgable enough to start such a list, but the entry for Super Robot has a list, and I think this entry should have one too! - Eyeresist 03:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I have started a list of Real Robot shows in the article. Please add anything appropriate. - Eyeresist 06:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would someone ref the list?  and also, the list is quite redundant, can we just list the notable series instead of every single anime and game? MythSearchertalk 08:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Why was the list removed? It was great for people trying to find harder to find series in the genre.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.63.214 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Real Robot shows

message: Only some of the robots are "real robots". While it is more militaristic than Gigantor and the likes, the Arbalest is still in many ways a super robot, it has it's own "character", and the power of the Lambda driver.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.7.2 (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem of such classification is, the author of FMP denies it to be a military based story, and said he did not intend it to be realistic.  The out come looks realistic is only because he himself is a military otaku. MythSearchertalk 08:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Full Metal Panic

message: The tags are simply disruptive and refuses to use common sense.  The article contains multiple sources from independent parties all using the term Real Robot to refer to a type of anime, it might not be a genre, yet it is thoroughly used to refer to directors,(There is a best director of real robot anime) first real robot anime, peak of real robot anime and other supporting sources claiming the term is being used for a type of anime.  There is no POV nor notability issue since it is not trying to claim anything from an editor's POV(and the NPOV guide claims that sources with their own POV should be listed).  The refirm prove tag I could understand, since the article claims that it is a genre yet there are no reliable source directly quoting that.(mainly due to Japanese people seldom use the term genre)  The other two tags, do not add it back, or AMIB, you can just go and list this in AfD and make it your WP:POINT campaign along with making yourself as a joke showing you lack of common sense in not reading articles sources while making false claims you imagined.  This article is creating way too much trouble thanks to you, AMIB and the vandal who persistently disrupt (yes, this also includes AMIB) the page, one with a strong POV in redirecting the page falsely claiming it to be only SRW related at first and when sources show otherwise, tried to continue to falsely claim it to be Sunrise and Banpresto used only term, and further stipulate it to be a Gundam marketing term, while sources shown are obviously talking about other series as well.  The other trying to add back the idiotic list without any source that includes multiple highly unsuitable series to the point where s/he only know how to revert the article to the state without any source and could face a total deletion is a simple stupid act on wishing the article to be deleted along with the list.  I do not want to waste my time on this anymore, at least one side has to be gone, and the  AMIB side seems to be easier to deal with(since AMIB got an account and is known to request for sources yet never read them) AMIB, I would ask for you to list this in AfD if you insist to redirect the page to somewhere or insist to place tags in this page to question the notability and POVness of the page, if you have so much doubt in the article's notability, show your arguments in somewhere people can laugh at your actions, instead of the persistent arguments against each of us to waste our time.  Yet the AfD would also be filed and I would go and ask for an evaluation on your adminship since your actions are very disruptive and using your own POV to the point where it is out of common sense.  MythSearchertalk 08:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: The capitalization of “Real Robot” is non-standard; genre names (mystery, romance, science fiction) are not capitalized in English as a rule, and this name exists in lowercase usage. Someone earlier used Google Books to argue that the capitalized form predominates, but Google Books is unhelpful, as searches return many copies of this very article. So what should the title of this article be?
*Real Robot
*Real robot
*Real Robot (genre)
*Real robot (genre)
*Real Robot genre
*Real robot genre
*Other?
—67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I feel this is actually a two-stepped question: Whether the title should be capitalized, and then whether it should be disambiguated. So it would make sense to decide on the capitalization first right? (Or else we'd be trying to have two separate arguments at the same time) Opencooper (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, but capitalization can also be used as disambiguation, so I don’t think the two can really be discussed separately. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

text: This is an example of an unjustified RfC.  I think an RfC should not be able to be initiated without at least two editors agreeing to put the question.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a better way to seek consensus on a lightly-trafficked page besides attempting another move, I’d be happy to try it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite the opposite.  There is a lack of rationale to need to do anything.  The case for moving from the status quo in the above RM was not strong.  RfCs are best reserved for important contentious matters.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the rules of English and our own naming conventions isn’t a strong case for naming? I don’t see that, but you’re entitled to your opinion. Also, WP:RFC reflects none of what you claim of RFCs, so that issue may be one of personal preference. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec) Oh, no, I am all for following the rules of English and our own naming conventions (except where there is reason for exception).  I think the case is not clearly made as to the problem.  Is not "Real Robot" a composition title or a real name?  It doesn't look like a descriptive name.  Is it source styling?  Some people have quite restrictive rules for what can be a real name.  I think anything that is singular/individual can be given a real name.  I think this is one of the great many cases near the boundary of being a valid real name.  That most genres don't get real names is not, for me, a compelling reason no genre can have a real name.  I am open to persuasion.  I think you should make a stronger case for a need for change.  Further, I don't like completely open questions, they remind me of spam surveys.  Giving one or a few suggestions is much better.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  You are correct in that I have a personal opinion here.  It is the same as I had at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12#Too_many_RfCs._Require_a_seconder_for_every_RfC.  In short, there are so many RfCs with bad questions, or with unimportant questions, that it is too tedious to browse all RfCs.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s a descriptive name for a genre. This genre uses real robots rather than super robots. If the genre was named for something titled “Real Robot,” I am not aware of it and the article makes no mention of it. So capitalization is no more appropriate here than for “mystery” or “urban fantasy.”  If you’re suggesting that the genre itself has a proper name, not derived from any other proper name, that would be a first, as far as I know. Could you give any other examples of such? Or any sources that claim it is one? There doesn’t seem to be a preponderance of evidence for capitalizing the name by convention—a Google News search shows almost exclusively lowercase usage for at least the first 30 results. So if it’s not a proper name, I say we shouldn’t treat it as such. (But if you find it is predominantly capitalized by convention, that’s as strong an argument as any.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no, no, I am asking the questions, and you know what you are talking about.  You are beginning to make a clearer case.  Based upon your explanation, I would suggest real robot animation.  It needs another word to be sufficient as a description.  You seem to be suggesting stop-motion animation using real robots, where "real" really means "real".  Is that right?  It certainly isn't clear from the article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, no; I didn’t realize how unfamiliar you were with the subject. It’s largely (exclusively?) a genre of anime and manga. Gundam Wing is a real-robot series, where the robots are manufactured by people and used in mundane life, whereas Voltron is a super-robot series, where the robots are legendary or mythical or sentient. Both series are traditionally animated anime. Any other questions? =) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Is anyone in favor of disambiguating with “genre” if we used Real robot? If not, I’ll attempt the RM again, since reliable news sources overwhelmingly do not capitalize it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "genre" is both implied and too vague a description.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

text: * Concur with MjolnirPants.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: What should this be titled?