Talk:Gunpla

message: The use of model scales for describing fantasy robots is pretty much useless unless you are a fan who knows how big the fictional robot is supposed to be.  Can someone include a description of how large the various models are?
-J
: This is now as done as it can be. Since the fictional robots are different sizes, the models will differ, but I've added the comparative sizes of every scale of the same model (RX-78) and a past editor included the general size ranges.Gravislizard (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale 

message: I believe these kits can't be called "First Grade" since there are only 3 kits labeled as "FG" (First Grade itself). These kits are the RX-78-2 'Gundam', MS-06 Zaku-2 and MS-06S Zaku-2 Char Custom, of 1/144 scale and with integrated joints, are produced in year 1990 (content verifiable from the Bandai Gundam Catalog 2004). All other 1/144 kits are referred to as "1/144" only. E Wing 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they need to be categorized somehow. Any ideas? CABAL 17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest that a single category called "1/144" be made to generalize this category, afterwards any other grades of 1/144 scale be placed under here. E Wing 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea that can be extended further. The main categories can be the scale values, and by extension we can fit other things like EX Model kits under them. CABAL 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience on Gundamshop's modelling board has been that these older kits are most commonly referred to as Low-grade (LG) or no-grade kits. I'm in agreement that the FG designation really isn't used all that commonly, but as there isn't any "official" term, it may be the best option to simply include a couple of the more common labels used to describe them Shogun221 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a first level classing by scale than a second level classing by grade? Sort of to make E Wing's suggestion uniform throughout the whole article. Or you can follow the japanese article that classifies them under "old kits"(旧キット). Iron2000 05:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that my first statement is true and the Gundam 00 series is the second series to produce an FG line (although these first kits are not labeled as such). On the 2004-2005 Gunpla Catalog, the FG line is placed between the PGs and the (very) first kits from Mobile Suit Gundam (which can be classified as "no-grade" kits). I'll post the picture of the said catalog after I've found it. E Wing 11:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Grade?

message: I think it should be added since the 1/100 GN-001 Gundam Exia has been released to the public for a while. I checked around the box at the local hobby shop and no grade ID has been labeled, possibly like SEED's 1/100 models? 66.183.215.186 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gundam 00 No Grade

message: Just done with re-arranging the kits into their specific scales and kit categories, also re-written and added some. Please note that this is still unfinished. E Wing 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scale Classification

message: Is it possible/ok to include information about Gundam figures (GFF, AMSiA, MSiA, Jumbo Grade, etc.) and integrate them to the model kits' scale classification? E Wing (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, I'd say that there are enough action figure lines for them to feature a seperate page, but that seperate page should include all action figure lines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neolordmaxwell (talk • contribs) 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Figures: include or not

message: I just added the ver. Ka line to the MG list. Can somebody please expand it and also add the ver. 1.5, 2.0, and the HD variants? Thanks. E Wing (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: MG line-up expansion

message: My main suggestion is that perhaps a mention about how "Gunpla" is in the anime, Keroro Gunso. Anyone else care to add anything? =3
Krazywrath~ (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences on culture

message: Shouldn't this article mention the new 1:1 model?  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, its not a model. Its just a 1:1 replica/statue. E Wing (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1:1 model

message: Should metallic coating(?) and mechnical detail be include in the artcle? User:C93310305:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can be included. E Wing (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  metallic coating(?)/mechnical detail 

message: The entry states that there have been only three High Grade EX kits, but makes no mention of the 1995 1/60 Wing Gundam Zero. I'm not sure if the Wing Gundam Zero box had the High Grade EX shield, it probably didn't, but it had similar characteristics to the three earlier ones:
* 1/60 size
* extensive details
* light gimmick
* articulated fingers
Could it be that Bandai killed off the High Grade EX line while the 1/60 model was in the works and released it anyways?
Box image
manual image 1
manual image 2  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.129 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific "grades" of a kit is always identified by a logo on the box itself. If a kit has no grade label then it is usually called as "non-graded". As for the characteristics it is always shared by a number of other 1:60 kits, particularly the lighting ed., some PGs, and the HY2M Glorious series. As to whether did Bandai killed off the HGEX line, it could be since they also killed off the HG 1:100 line but still continuing that scale (and also the 1:60) with the same/similar characteristics from the previous ones.E Wing (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Grade EX 

message: I must say that this article became a disgustingly bad one.  It is currently over organized into fine categories of every single product line's trivial like a commercial ad and is really not helping the reader understand the overall product's notability.  These kind of articles attracts deletionists, and something must be done to stop this. If this is AfDed, we have no defence at all.  The current single 3rd party reliable sources is number 5(blogs are not reliable and hlj, the company, is not independent 3rd party).  I propose to delete all of the product line descriptions and keep it simple, talk only about the main products that appear dominantly in model magazines, that are the HG/RG 1/144, MG 1/100 and PG 1/60, and only mention briefly on the other scales in like one single sentence.  In fact, this topic is rather notable if correct sources can be found, there are numerous TV shows that visited the Gunpla factory, numerous model magazines that teaches modeling of Gunpla and even TV shows that teach how to build plastic models extensively show the modelers building Gunpla.  The article need a major revamp if it wants to survive any longer.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  04:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good news, User:Mythsearcher and User:Shogun221, ten years later someone (me) finally got around to it. It's surprising the whole page didn't get deleted already, but hopefully it's safe now.Gravislizard (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issue 

message: Hey, I need to edit a Wikipedia assignment for class. I was hoping to work on this assignment. I see the 1/110 RE line has very little information on it and I hope on expanding that section. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LandonWade (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  School assignment 

message: There may be a debate to be had on this topic. I removed most information about non-Gundam models from this article, including a change I just reverted by User:Protothedweeb because it's specifically titled "Gundam model." I do not profess to be an expert on the gunpla hobby community, and while I can imagine the *term* might be shorthand for other Bandai models in the same design style, I feel like "Gundam model" needs to mean things *from the Gundam series.*  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravislizard (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing info about non-gunpla 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: title is self-explanatory, a figure line dosent really belong in a section about model kits
Additionally, this is on me, but I should the section on Minipla should be deleted as it is not really Gundam-related, and should lines featured in the article be only Gundam-focused (no 30 Minute Missions, etc.)? AranaeHere (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete the Gundam Fix Figuration section?