Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam 00

message: Like this one? http://www.gundam00.net/ms/img/01.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.6.142 (talk • contribs) 
:I can see your point, but I'd be worried about opening this entry up to too much picture dressing. The current pic was uploaded mostly as a prilimary thing. It's a dynamic looking promo shot which provides a quick look at the Exia. I imagine once the show starts and details come the image will be removed.--HellCat86 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is if you can find another model of the Exia gundam.--Zeta26 08:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we use a better picture of Gundam Exia? 

message: Okay, the first theme has been added to the Opening/Ending themes. Please, do not delete them -- rather if you have some info. It'd be much appreciated if you would add some themes as well. And also you're welcome to add insert themes when the show gets underway as well.--Zeta26 08:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro/Outro Themes Now Added 

message: The offical page has numbers 9.29, and I also read somwewhere the same date, so I was wondering which is the correct date for the premiere...89.133.167.182 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiere 

message: IMPORTANT!
I've found some impressive data on the 4 Gundams names, technical stats, and possible pictures of each; However, I can't seem to figure out how to cite sources on Wikipedia; can someone load these 4 Adresses as "sources"? They are consistant with the Normal format for Gundam data,and all list the same artist under "designer"(except for Exia), So I have reason to believe legitimacy.
Exia: http://www.mahq.net/Mecha/gundam/00/gn-001.htm
Dynames: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/00/gn-002.htm
Kyrios: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/00/gn-003.htm
Virtue: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/00/gn-005.htm
Agian, this is Important because I can't add the "gundams" section without sources being loaded; otherwise It'll be deleted shortly thereafter.
Shotesu 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with sources

message: I noticied that in the first episode everyone who was in the orbital elevator was floating.  The only reason people in spaceships float is because they are in perpetual free-fall.  The Earth's gravitational pull at that distance isn't much different from that on the surface.  Should this be listed somewhere on the page? Bwabes 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that would count as original research. In addition, Gundam shows have people who are hired to make sure the science makes sense. There's a good chance there's something you've overlooked that makes the floating valid.--HellCat86 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not being given the orbital height of the space elevator (at least to my knowledge), we have no way of knowing whether or not the gravitational pull is accurate or inaccurate. Though, according to the Wiki article on Space Elevators, it's quite possible that it's orbiting that high.Egocentrism04 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If no external force is acting upon people within the elevator other than gravity, then the height of the "weightless" part of the elevator must be more than 3 times the diameter of the Earth when the orbit is over the equator (see geosynchronous orbit). It is definitely possible though, for them to modify external forces so people feel like they are in space or something, I doubt the elevator is that high.Cnfjti3 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, your comment doesn't really make any sense. The entire point of a space elevator is to lift mass to at least geosynchronous orbit, so that important material can be launched into space without requiring propellant. If the top station of the elevator was below the point of being in geosynchronous orbit, then anything launched from it would fall back to Earth. Further, a space elevator CANNOT support its mass via structural integrity alone. All known materials are too weak to support a tower that high. Instead, space elevators are supported by having a mass distribution such that their center of mass is in geosynchronous orbit. The mass above this point is pulled away from the Earth by its own velocity, counteracting the mass that is pulled towards the Earth by gravity. 70.65.53.168 21:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said, geosynchronous orbit is more than 3 times the diameter of the Earth, you think they will try to build something that high/huge? Seriously if they could do that, they wouldn't be worrying about energy. I thought the elevator was used to connect the solar energy generator to earth (if there was one).Cnfjti3 04:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Louise says in the third episode that the orbital elevators were built for the purpose of constructing colonies. Likewise, Tieria was able to bring the Virtue back into orbit by disguising it as parts for colony construction. Also, the ring of solar generation satellites that were constructed would not be able to survive anywhere BUT geosynchronous orbit. If the ring were constructed below geosynch orbit, then it would be continuously pulled inward, and the stress on the system would tear it apart. One way or another, it looks like the ring of satellites, as well as the orbital elevators, were built up to geosynchronous orbit. The Virtue's capsule being weightless when it is first jettisoned from the top of the elevator proves this. The lack of gravity is an indication of the location of the satellites/top stations. 68.148.224.47 05:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'd also like to point out that today, in 2007, we already have hundreds of satellites placed in geosynchronous orbit, and we are already beginning primitive investigations into how to construct space elevators which extend well beyond geosynchronous orbit. Conventional designs call for starting with a very thin, almost microscopic cable, which would then be reinforced by climbers which add small amounts of material each time they go up. In this manner, it is technically feasible to construct an elevator built around a strong, large central cable, without having to fly that much mass into space directly. If space elevators are in fact feasible, we could probably start building them within the century. In 2307, it should be a piece of cake. Check the appropriate Wikipedia pages for more information. 68.148.224.47 05:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well according to the 5th episode, it seems the place where people gathers on the space elevator isn't in geosynchronous orbit, it just seems to be way too large for such a thing to be built that high around the world. About the stress of weight upon itself, the elevators used to bring people up to geosynchronous orbit would not survive the gravitational pull if they were built all the way into the rings. We might have hundreds of satellites already in orbit over the equator, but it will take A LOT more than a few hundred for an entire ring to be built, you'd have to take out a small chunk of earth for it to be built. The amount of energy used to bring materials from the surface of the earth to a platform that high could be used for all sorts of more productive things. Most spacecrafts would have to be built on earth and lifted into the ring through an elevator anyways, so they are not exactly saving a lot of energy when they release things into space. Cnfjti3 04:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thing is, they don't need to save energy, as the lack of fossil fuels means they don't have much of an alternative (how else to get the energy back to Earth?) and the whole elevator is powered by the giant generator rings anyway. But what i wonder is how much more effective the space based solar panels are compared to surface based ones in order to warrant using space elevators (the lack of any solar panels in the Middle East of all places notwithstanding).   Ciobanica (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  incorrect, the main station is at the geosync. in the OO version, they have a midway stopping point(compare it to the 1st ep, you can see it is alot smaller) at LEO which just hang in the middle of the elevator line. the idea is the tourist only want to go the space, there is no need for them to go all the way to the main station which was build there to provide the center of mass of the elevator. technically the elevator line cannot be straight, it is slightly bend like a bow due to drag. also it is cheap to move thing futher up in space with space tug, it is only expensive getting them into space. lanuching to geosync is expensive now because you have to lanuch a 'space tug' with every rocket. but for a really large scale space program, there will be reusable space tug waiting in the orbit, you then just need to refuel it. and ion engine are more effective per ton of fuel; it can also take advantage of solar power. Akinkhoo (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  personally, i don't believe in the space elevator concept. it is just a big target for terrorist as show in the anime. there is also alot of issue with drag correction and that is gonna bump up the cost too. it is more logical and faster to gather material from space. the space elevator is just a white elephant like the space shuttle, by the time you finish it; your rival could have finish their space colony and mining centers for basically the SAME PRICE! they can then expand their dominance by reclaiming more asteriod since they would have the infrastruture. why is everyone going to the moon instead of researching elevator? it is obvious u are gonna have colonies 1st, and with colonies, the elevators could be contructed cheaply to improve trade (rather then build colony). Akinkhoo (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Errors in the Show 

message: Would it make sense that we create an article about the factions in Gundam 00? The other Gundam factions page seems to suffer from a lot of problems, but should we create one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.81.176 (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we just add brief desriptions to the character list, sort of what I did with Azadistan? Just a suggestion, though. :) --Koveras ☭ 09:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to support it, but let's wait for later info first. Ominae 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gundam 00 Nations and Factions

message: I appreciate your efforts, Fallacies, but is an enormous table like that really necessary? ^^; I mean, the who list is on the ANN page already and it is linked at the bottom of the page... --Koveras ☭ 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it was there anyways. I just reformatted it and added some stuff.Fallacies (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've noticed it in all Gundam articles that they tend to replace decent character sections with list of voice actors and staff names... An inherited flaw, perhaps? :) --Koveras ☭ 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a character's section that's not just a VA list, so things are good, I think.Fallacies (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me? ^^ What else is in the character section except the names of the characters and their respective seiyus? ;) My point is that a list of names has very little encyclopedic notability (especially if it's already available on other websites). :) --Koveras ☭ 12:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The characters section.Fallacies (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, I didn't get it. ^^ But that's not a "section" in the way MediaWiki uses the term. That's a separate article containing a list of characters. :) By "character section" I meant something along the lines of featured articles (Excel Saga, Lain, Madlax): a piece of prose briefly outlining the main cast and their relationships. Admittedly, Gundams tend to have enormous casts because people tend to die off easily and secondary characters get a lot of characterization, as well, but it's still possible to pack them all into prose IMO. --Koveras ☭ 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staff 

message: I have altered the term "World Economy Union" to "Global Economic Union." This should be further editted if an official translation appears. It appears on the Japanese wiki as "Union of Solar Energy and Free Nations," which might or might not be officially sourced. It seems to be in the same spirit as "ZAFT." Also, a previous edit modified the fansub-based "Human Reform/Reformed League" to a more communistic-themed "People's Revolutionary Alliance." I believe this to be appropriate, because even though "reform league" is a literal translation, "People's Revolutionary" compares better with  and the Chinese "People's Liberation Army" (人民解放軍). -- Fallacies 05:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This preview clip for Gundam 00 do use "Union of Solar Energy and Free Nations" (00:34) and "Human Reform League" (1:02).  However, in the beginning of episode 2 the narrator also unmistakably said "世界経済連合" (which literally translates to World/Global Economic/Economy Union).  It may be there's a name change (back in GSD, the Japanese official homepage used to name Strike Freedom as Super Freedom, and Infinite Justice as Knight Justice, many weeks before they actually appeared in the show) for the Union between initial preview and when it started airing, or perhaps the English official fullname of the Union is supposed to not literally match up with that of the Japanese fullname.   Anyways, my initial choice for "World Economy Union" was to draw a parallel structure with "World Trade Organization".  I also want to point out a huge difference between "人類" (Human/Mankind) vs "人民" (the People).  The Japanese/Chinese translation for communist stuff always use 人民 and not 人類.  I also believe the corresponding term for "Global" would've been "全球" (lit. "Whole Ball" where the ball is a reference to the planet Earth the "Earth Ball" 地球).  -Pan Sola 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as how the preview clip is the only source for *official* English translations so far, I see no reason to not use those translations and to use the fansubbers' wordings. I am reverting back to them until someone can show that they are officially wrong.Darkhunger 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking along those lines... the plot section goes over the country's and their relationships rather than a brief summary of the plot, also, Celestial being was formed well before the orbital elevators were erected. Goodie01 (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: i was wondering what the 00 ment and how you might say it, for example is it just zero zero? or does it mean something else? picklefishman Dec. 2, 2007  —Preceding comment was added at 05:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Japanese, it's pronounced Double-Oh. If there's a reason for the name, it's likely noted in production materials I haven't seen.Fallacies 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In English, it should be pronounced as Double-Oh too. If you like to know, there's actually a Gundam named "GN-0000 Gundam 00", though that doesn't explain precisely what "00" mean.Kazenorin (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Spoiler - The thing about "Gundam 00" is that it is the name of the Gundam that will change the world. It kind of tells you in the final episode of Season 1. Jeffrey G. Conflict 2552 Producer 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That does not answer the question of what 00 means.. Well I wonder why it's pronounced Double-Oh while the title has double zeroes. Although it's true Double-Oh sounds better. --staka (T ・C) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The impression I got was that while Gundam 0 was the model for the all Gundams, Gundam 00 would be the model for all the next-generation gundams - an entirely new line. 163.187.160.203 (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, Gundam 00 may be using two zeros, so many would say it should be read as Double-Zero, but if Double-Oh is how the Japanese want the title to be read, the let it be so.lpjz290  —Preceding undated comment added 08:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What does 00 mean?

message: Just curious..is it acknowledged in the Gundam 00 series or is it set on a completely different setting?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.14.83.20 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is. Gundam 00 is set on a completely different universe (Anno Domini (AD) timeline) compared to Gundam SEED (Cosmic Era (CE) timeline). E Wing (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gundam 00 is set in our own timeline in the near future (real earth) as opposed to a fictional timeline which is why it reflects current social events. --mahq (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to get technical about it, they are all in the same timeline according to Turn A, just taking place at various different technological resurgencies.  It's simply that OO takes place the closest to our current day and age.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.121.210 (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It may have some slight resemblance to the other series, but Gundam 00 is, after all, a different series by itself. So i don't think that saying this is series is based off other series is appropriate.lpjz290  —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So there's no mention of PLANTs or ZAFT (from Gundam Seed) in Gundam 00? 

message: Anyone in favor of a section rewrite (condensation into several paragraphs of information; removal of the numerous subsections) here? This section seems to be a little messy, with fragmented info here and there. In fact, the sentences make little to no sense to me at times. The Slimy One 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters section 

message: I´m generally miffed that everyone keeps adding fault japanese mispronounciation. Really: it´s just dumb in my opinion and serves no purpouse.
Why do you keep doing this? I mean what point is there that a reader needs to know that "Soresutaru Biiingu" is the way the japanese mispronounce it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.188.192.20 (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this is pointless. The Japanese have their way of pronouncing those words, and it is only fair that non-English speaking people get to  see this and they will be able to see how the name is read. Just ignore the 'mispronounciation' if you do not want to see it. It serves a purpose for the others.lpjz290  —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese pronounciation 

message: When I was watching the anime series the characters call them Arrows, but in this refered to them as A-laws. What are they called, Arrows or A-laws?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.194.124 (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially, it's A-Laws, as seen on GN-XIII's boxart. The Slimy One 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd agree that in dialogue it does sound like the VAs are doing their best to say 'Arrows', plus we have those badges which seem to also suggest that's the name. However, as said all English official writings currently give the name as A-Laws. This might be a blooper but right now it's all we have to go on until BEI officially translate season 2--HellCat86 (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrows or A-laws?

message: From the new OP single, Setuna's real name is Soran Ebrahim in the character card. (75.157.130.116 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setsuna's real name 

message: Either I'm not seeing it or its not there, but should there be something about the opening at the beginning of the episode that changes in about mid-season 2? What I'm saying is that in another anime, Gurren Laggan, there's like a seven year skip, so the opening changes. But during mid-season 2, there is no "skip". And also the new opening is really different from the other one. But then again this might be a different one or something because I'm watching the episodes (since season two isn't going to be on SciFi, at least not for a while) on different sites, mainly MegaVideo and others. Searching for an Answer or Opinion, WM2 20:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 2 Opening 

message: One of the links took me to the AnimeFart website. I noticed that there was an episode 13.5 between episode 13 and 14 (duh). It was in all Japanese so I didn't take the time to go through the whole video. Does anyone have some kind of explanation? Please & Thank You, WM2 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a recap episode ? --KrebMarkt 08:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I didn't really watch the whole thing, but it looked like an interview to me. Sincerely, WM2 20:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 13.5 

message: a commercial in the last episode of season 2 shows the planet Jupiter and mention that they are developing a Gundam 00 movie in 2010. SilentmanX (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gundam 00 movie 

message: I have merged the above article into this one, however, I would urge those with a knowledge and interest to clean it up, as my merger may well be a little on the cruder and sloppier side. Apologies for any unnecessary work I've created!! HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger from [[Mobile Suit Gundam 00: Gundam Meisters]]

message: I notice that currently the plot for season 2 states that the plan called for A-Laws force to unite humanity after Celestial Being's initial defeat. Unless an official source confirms that I think we should remove it. A-Laws being part of the plan is only ever stated by Ribbons and his followers, who are known to be rogue elements. When Tieria discusses the plan in episode 24, he only mentions that Celestial Being's interventions were meant to unite humanity against a common enemy. It would seem clear that A-Laws is Ribbons being impatient and using violence to stronghand his interepretation of the plan.--HellCat86 (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The plan 

message: the source (aeug.blogspot.com) says 
- first volume is 22,847 copies not 42,847 copies
- third volume is 25,135 copies not 55,135 copies401team (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are unreliable sources, unless it is by a published expert, and can't be used to support any statements. Oricon's sells rankings should be referenced directly or through another reliable source, such as ANN. --Farix (Talk) 12:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the first and third volume's DVD gundam 00 first week selling?  

message: Just a general notice to not change any references to the Sci Fi channel prier to the July 7, 2009 rebranding. This is do to remain factually accurate as the channel was called the Sci Fi channel until July 7, 2009 when it was rebranded as Syfy. Any content related to the post-rebranding period should, naturally, use the new name. --Farix (Talk) 21:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sci Fi channel 

message: the movie description says that there are four lights surrounding Jupiter plus one in the very center but i don't see one and i don't see any reference to it either. So i'll edit it to say only for lights  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the very first light shown in the preview and list slightly off-center to the upper left of the other four lights when the camera zooms out for the final shot. --Farix (Talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, 1280X720 pic. I see clearly the light in the middle upper right(precisely at 725-294 on the x-y axis system in counting upper left hand corner as 0-0). —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  18:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I have the video itself in 1280x720 scale and the light is clearly present. You can identify all five of them as they all have diffraction spikes to differentiate them form the background. The YouTube video is scaled down and probably a low quality encoding, so things may be blurry. --Farix (Talk) 16:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The YouTube video does blur out the center light quite a bit, but I can tell it's there and is of the same color as the other four. (Isn't that what is said in the article? Nothing is mentioned about it being a Gundam.) The diffraction spikes in Myth's photo also confirms the fifth light in my opinion. Arsonal (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The fifth light is very clearly there in the image provided above (as well as in the video itself). There are five lights, not four. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I was thinking the exact same thing. Both sides win and it means technically we aren't presenting incorrect information--HellCat86 (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence could be changed, but I don't see why we should compromise with people who does not try to find clearer sources but instead insist on using a blurred copyright violation material to support the edit.  Although it might be good faith, the action is hardly justifiable.  BTW, the image above was searched and obtained in the first google result, I did not take any side(And I have not counted the number of lights) before the search.  I only tried to find the correct resolution image(HD) and I got the correct result that anyone can see as common sense.  There is no win-win but only correct and incorrect here. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  14:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking personally, I can't see the fifth light. I see the 4 around Jupiter but what everyone is claiming is a final one just looks like detail to me. It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but then if I honestly can't see it I can't say 'Five is correct'. The idea to make the actual article note a bit more ambigious resolves that perfectly. The only other solution is to find an official 00 reference source which says how many lights are at the end.--HellCat86 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mythsearcher is right. Even though I have somewhat poor vision, the fifth light is quite easy to see in his pic. Jtrainor (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie description 

message: In the "Story and Settings - First Season" section, it says that the character Setsuna "...grew up in the war-torn Krugis Republic."  However, later, in the characters section, Setsuna is said to have been "...a child soldier in the war-torn Kurdish Republic."  As far as I can tell, the official term is "Krugis Republic".  Is there any official source for the "Kurdish Republic" interpretation?  When I listened to the Japanese dialog, I couldn't here it, but I don't claim to be an expert.  Either way, shouldn't the terms be consistent?  I'd make the edit, but that feels presumtious, being a new user and all.  Rubyfulcrum (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, I would support your edit.  You can source it from the official site. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  07:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was originally the Kurdish Republic, the Kurgis thing only started showing up later, when the official translation got underway. But as it's official the article should use it, with maybe some mention of the change. Ciobanica (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Krugis Republic" or "Kurdish Republic"? 

message: :While critically acclaimed, the first season of Gundam 00 experienced lower average ratings than its predecessors Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. Over its 25 episode run, it averaged a rating of 4.85% and peaked at 6.1%. On a more positive note, Gundam 00's average rating was higher than the other previous Gundam shows set in alternative universes such as Gundam Wing (which averaged 4.3%) and G Gundam (which averaged 4.1%)
This section is self-contradictory, as it neglects the fact that Gundam SEED is itself set in an alternate universe from the main Universal Century continuity.--RosicrucianTalk 01:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: One of the things that has bothered me for some time is if Mobile Suit Gundam 00 consists of two different series or is it one whole series consisting of two seasons. The reason for this question is that each Infobox animanga component is suppose to give an overview of an single series, including all seasons within that series.
Arguments for one series with two seasons:
* The series's title does not change
* Same production staff, studio, and network
* A break between seasons is not unheard of (ex. Tsubasa Chronicle)
Arguments for two series lasting for one season each:
* Time skip
* Entirely new character designs and mobile suits
* A break between the two seasons is very unusual in Japan
* Episode count restarts
Some of these are a bit superficial, but what are your thoughts? If it's one series with two seasons, then the two seasons need to be combined into a single infobox component. If it is two seasons with the same title, than we need to come up with a better way of handling the titles in the infobox components as it looks like "First Season" and "Second Season" are part of the official title. —Farix (t | c) 04:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it's one series with two seasons. The second batch of dvd/blu-rays have the title . amazon.co.jp example. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will need some time to verify this, but from what I remember, it is one series with 2 seasons in the beginning of production.  The producer had mentioned that the break is to ensure the quality of the show. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's the source: Official site showing 1st season and 2nd season. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  06:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, I've combined both seasons into one infobox. The information between the two is the same anyways, just the episode count and start/end dates needed updating. —Farix (t | c) 11:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  One series with two seasons or two series lasting for one season each? 

message: The "popularity" section includes anime & character poll in the April 2008 issue of Newtype. However, I don't think this poll is notable enough because Newtype is published monthly along with a poll each issue. Typically, any reasonably popular currently-airing anime will get voted in the Top 10s of the month. Aside from that, Newtype is just one magazine, its character popularity poll doesn't hold more weight than other anime magazines like Animedia or Animage.
I suggest removing the poll result, or adding a tabulation from other months & magazines (might be too tedious), or only including annual character popularity polls, such as Animage's Anime Grand Prix. Nofairytale (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character popularity polls 

message: Season 2 part 1 ANN Season 2 part 1 Mania.com Mania.com Season 2 part 2 Mania.com Season 2 part 3 ANN Mobile Suit Gundam 00 the Movie: Awakening of the Trailblazer ANN Shelf Life season 2 part 1 & 2
--KrebMarkt 18:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: About the popularity part, what is the point in comparing 00 to Seed and Destiny? shouldn't 00 be compared to other Anime from the same time period? (2007/2009)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.103.115 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Popularity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mobile Suit Gundam 00. 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/20100328145825/http://www.sunrise-anime.jp/news/gundam00/movie/ to http://www.sunrise-anime.jp/news/gundam00/movie/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)