Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Archive 1

message: Recent Template:Infobox Mobile Suit edit war activity indicates Template:Infobox Mobile Suit should be considered within this mediation unless prior consenus is reached at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit#Ahem. Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 21:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox Mobile Suit 

message: *Party details and relevant links:
**
**
**
**
*Parties are asked to watch this cases' relevant pages, by clicking this link.
*Parties can contact me, in complete confidence, using the details provided here.
Anthøny 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Mediation Notes 

message: So what's going on? I was under the impression we had agreed that the dispute was over the table of weaponry, then nothing's happened since then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm drafting up a statement here in wordpad. Bear with me, I plan to begin tomorrow. Anthøny 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie doke. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... 

message: My stance is unclear because I have deliberately avoided becoming involved in the issue I presented.  I thought that mediation would be much like arbitration: the user conduct issues and (more importantly) the difference beween the filing party and uninvolved ones.  I guess typically the really involved parties themselves file mediation cases, and I am an anomaly.
I support the inclusion of the infobox, because I feel that the armamanets is statstical information, and Wikipedia doesn't do straight-up statistical information.  For instnace, for video games, we don't publish the exact RAM or processor requirements.  As comparison, none of the Pokémon species articles have in-universe information such as what species they are, height or weight, or footprint.  Yu-Gi-Oh! card articles only consist of prose and have no lists (those that have it should be pruned out) I regard bullet point aramament information in the same light and think they need be phased out for more prose. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to become an involved party, I am willing to respect that. Admittedly, it is more rare in Mediation than in Arbitration (for the filer to be uninvolved), but it can be accommodated. Anthøny 12:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, not involved, but if it helps resolve this conflict, then I'll put my best foot forward. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Hbdragon88|Hbdragon88]]

message: My statement is simple: I choose to follow the established consensus of WP:GUNDAM to use the infobox developed by Maikeru and MalikCarr as it is the best one for the job and doesn't violate any policies, grandstanding by other parties aside. I do not welcome anyone, admins or no, crashing into the articles WP:GUNDAM works on like a wrecking ball and changing things for no good reason. We have enough problems.  Jtrainor (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]]

message: I'm just going to quote , a project member who has also opposed A Man In Black's edits, because despite his fragile English, he's more or less covered the topic better than I could in much fewer words:
"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."
1. There is no copyright violation in using the currently-untemplated infobox created by  - the information contained therein is truncated and intentionally brief, so as not to replace the market role of publications such as Gundam: The Official Guide or use of Bandai America's official Gundam website. We include that the mobile suit has a beam rifle, but not its model number, energy capacity, or that it's powered by a replaceable e-pack. We also don't include information that has no real bearing on the article's context (information that doesn't help the reader understand the subject), such as reactor output, empty weight, sensor range, armor material, etc. For an example of a "runaway infobox full of in-universe copyvio trivia", as A Man In Black has so eloquently put it whilst blocking me for "copyright infringement", I entreat anyone to examine the Japanese Wikipedia pages on any of the articles in question - they're all linked in the appropriate places - then reference the quite spartan and utilitarian infobox we have. The difference is quite obvious, and, in short, the one favored by just about everyone involved in this edit war that isn't A Man In Black "helps the reader to understand the subject" better.
:Oh, yes, a brief rebuttal in response to "phase out in favor of more prose", the articles that are currently the subject of this edit war -have- had their weapons described textually, in much more detail in terms of creation and function. This was a flaw of the original three articles, which I have since acknowledged and repaired in the articles that are not protected until next year (for the record, A Man In Black reverts to his infobox anyway). MalikCarr (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:MalikCarr|MalikCarr]]

message: :A Rebuttal: 
:* The fact that the weapons are fictional are irrelevant - it's a weapon, period, and that should be clarified accordingly. 
:* Your claims of copyright violation continue to confound me, as nothing is taken verbatim from any source. If it is copyright violation to include brief notation of figures using original interpretation and wording, by that logic the prose would be violation as well. It's the same content - the former is just easier to reference quickly.
:* The numbers are not "made up" more than any other numerical designation in a fiction (such as the ages of characters, the numbering of an episode, or the total kill count of our hero) - this might have been true during the early days of Mobile Suit Gundam in 1979, before the franchise was a commercial moneytrain, but pre-production sketches showing kanji for different weapon placements say otherwise for just about every Gundam work in recent times (I'd have uploaded one such sketch of an early Psyco Gundam rendition, but I don't know the source, so I can't fair use it). Also, I'll be curious to see where -your- sources are claiming that they are "criticized by fans as being made up on the spot". I've certainly never come across such an accusation in a reliable source.
:* "added after the fact, to fill out material for supplementary guides, written by completely different authors" sounds like original research to me, and we can't be having any of that, now can we?
:* I'll be more than happy to track down quotations for specific weapons in the animation in question - that accusation is patently false in a demonstrable number of cases. Perhaps Gundam Wing and its dumb "fighting level" statistics would be, since those are downright out-of-universe classifications for fan guides (though it should be noted that a similar system used in G Gundam was referenced at least a few times as an official Gundam Fight classification), but if you're trying to apply that logic to the bulk of the Universal Century articles being debated, you're patently wrong.
:* Finally, the articles in question (along with others you insist on reverting) are not "fan guides" any more than any other fiction article is, in that they explain the appearance and function of a fictional item, before moving on to topics of cultural significance and real world impact (or at least, that's what fiction articles should do - given all the unsourced piles of garbage out there, it's a wonder you choose to war on these...). Weren't you helping with the WP:FICT rewrite? You should know that plenty well.
:* Regarding WP:WAF, I believe I've debunked your rationale for citing it appropriately, but do elaborate on why it is so relevant to the case at hand.
MalikCarr (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttal to AMIB 

message: These aren't weapons. They're elements of a fictional story. People keep comparing them to rifles and F-14s and whatever, but the technical trivia of real-world weapons actually do dictate their role and performance, whereas these, as elements of a fictional story, only have the role given to them by authors to serve the plot. (Note that when I remade the infobox, I removed the technical trivia and added facts like which authors and which plots.)
Indeed, often these statistics are never mentioned in the work in question. They're added after the fact, to fill out material for supplementary guides, written by completely different authors. (Indeed, these statistics are often criticized by fans as being made up on the spot.) We're not talking about a rigorous statistical model being used to derive these stats; they're imaginary numbers being applied to giant robots that fly around in space and fight with laser swords.
On top of all this, they're copyvio. We're making fan guides by copying material out of copyrighted, licensed fan guides. A measurement (or any other fact) can't be copyrighted, so such tables are uncopyrightable for real-world items, but fictional statistics aren't facts but instead copyrightable fiction.
So. Made-up numbers so important that they're only mentioned in supplementary material, copied verbatim for no concern for copyright. I don't think the consensus of two or three users on WP:GUNDAM (which is almost never as unanimous as MC claims) overrides the copyright concerns or WP:WAF. Remember, even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by AMIB