Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Gundam/Archive 2

message: Don't forget the pics. We need the pics over at Wikia. Shrumster 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems most of the Cosmic Era mobile suit images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosmic_Era_images are going to be deleted on February 9, 2007, because they're orphaned/not used in any articles. Silver Edge 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikia Export 

message: Guys, I just found a reference that may help in future debates about Gundam's notability. 
*
Gundam (the original series) is mentioned.
Shrumster 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone has ever said that the whole Gundam concept is non-notable, it's just those pesky weapons. Moreschi  Deletion! 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be surprised. :) I've encountered quite a lot of people who don't believe that stuff like this aren't important to non-fans because they're "just a robot cartoon". Shrumster 13:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you and other "deletionists" fail to understand is the nature of the Gundam franchise. The "pesky weapons" are elevated to a status near that of characters; the bewildering array of merchandise based off of the more popular ones, and the model kits and resin figures of the intermediate variety, should be testament enough to that. The Wiki litmus test for "notability" is, in this situation, not serving the community as well as it should, giving the rather unique circumstances of this scenario. I keep trying to mention this, and it keeps falling on deaf ears. MalikCarr 03:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm an inclusionist. Shrumster 08:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. That was targeted at Moreschi. My apologies. MalikCarr 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: At any rate, I've dug up some relevant sources and references to contest the AfD of this article, owing to it being "unsourced fancruft" as the deletion critera, and would appreciate a few keep votes. Despite what they say with "AfDs are not a vote" that's typically how it comes down, no matter how well the dissenting minority clarifies the problems originally raised with the AfD. Please note that this only applies to the Dijeh and Hi-Zack articles; those Gundam X mecha are effectively boned since they really don't have much (or practically anything, to be honest) in the way of notability outside the series they appeared in. MalikCarr 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I realize people are focused on the Gundam vehicles pages, but a dispute has come up on one of the character pages, and I'm hoping to get some neutral third party input.
I first encountered user Freedom Justice whem they made a pair of nonsensical edits on 1/23 to the template info of the Cagalli Yula Athha page. .
To me this looked like the typical driveby fan promoting their favorite matches and I reverted it.
The same editor did something similar to the Lacus Clyne page , which was sourced (albeit poorly) in the article itself, so I also reverted that, and briefly explained why. Three days later an anonymous user duplicated Freedom Justice's edit and removed the sourcing in the body of the article.
When I reverted that, Freedom Justice repeated the deletion, changing the source to say something else.
I should requested other people to comment at that time, but instead I continued to revert what I saw fan-favoritism vandalism.  Anonymous editors repeated the previous anonymous edit on 1/27  and 1/28   and 1/30 .
At this point their comments claimed the drama CD said something completely different than the article had originally said and chastised me for changing the article without any proof.  (I believe the pot and kettle analogy fits rather well.)  Since I had no proof either way, I stated that I believed poster of the old version was more credible than Freedom Justice. 
Freedom Justice again posted what I saw as opinion, not fact on 1/31  as did an anonymous poster  Freedom Justice on 2/2  and 2/3  and again on 2/3 .
In the second to last Freedom Justice complained about my not giving reasons (though I had in several previous reverts).  In the last he engaged in personal insults towards myself.
Now possibly Freedom Justice is right, but they haven't acted in a way that I find credible.  I should have asked for outside help much sooner, but I'm hoping someone else will be willing to step in and help with this whole sorry mess. . Edward321 03:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should fix part of the problem. That part of the infobox really wasn't important, and is just a magnet for these kinds of fan arguments and speculations (WP:OR, etc). As for the edits outside of the infobox, this is just speculation of my own, but when people start to cite a "drama CD" that no one has heard of before.. it's usually bull :) -- Ned Scott 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know the detail, but I asked one of my friend who has such CD, he stated that the drama CD referred may be the 8th GSD CD. He will check it for me later to make sure, though may be someone needed to confirm it. Draconins 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I and my friend have not found anything related in the 8th CD, the drama is about Lacus who try to sing the same way as Meer helped by Andrew Waltfeld, I and my friend will continue to 3rd GS CD. Draconins 06:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now, that I have heard the 3rd CD, I am sure the one thing refered to is the 3rd Suit CD. Okay this cd has a track with a title "Haro". It takes story during Athrun's visit to Lacus's house. There, Athrun thinks that Lacus is pretty, Lacus even talk about what will their children become which make Athrun panic. Later, Athrun also fixed some kind of machinary and build Haro for Lacus. They also talk many more. So I guess this is kind of first love. Anyone can put this to deal with the fan-matching? I want to provide the track, if only it is not illegal, sigh... =_= Draconins 05:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks, Ned.  While I found the line useful shorthand, it is such a target for driveby fan-favoritism that we're better off without it.  Such people usually don't delve into article itself.  Edward321 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some help please 

message: Section title says it all. Admin Blnguyen has argued, in closing this AfD, that votes from WP:GUNDAM members, or alleged members (as if this has become a crime now...) may be discounted from AfD debates. I am presently attempting to have this precedent overturned because it is DANGEROUS. Would -you- like a say in whether or not an article written by this project should be deleted, or should outsiders only be allowed to vote for that? I am not a member of this project, but I can see an injustice as big as this one for miles. MalikCarr 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I tried. The current "concensus" is that nothing I have cited in any of these articles is a "reliable source," including but not limited to Entertainment Bibles, model kit listings and Bandai America's Gundam website. With this in mind, nothing Gundam-related beyond the most general things (such as the RX-78, if you remember that fiasco) are "sourced" on Wikipedia, no matter what might be claimed. This was the brass ring, gentlemen, and it is a failure. MalikCarr 12:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just improve the Wikia stuff. Seems like a big portion of Wikipedia is anti-Gundam (and anime in general), which I find unfair, seeing as Star Wars and Simpsons have very favourable treatment. Shrumster 19:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:GUNDAM members may have votes ignored 

message: There seems to be an issue involving a number of Gundam articles and Articles For Deletion.
WP:N defines notability as follows:
"If it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic.
Notable here means "worthy of being noted"[1][2] or "attracting notice"[3]. It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness". "''
A subnote to this is : "Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.".
Wikipedia:Independent sources is an essay, Notability and Reliable Sources are guidelines. The relevant portions of WP:RS says this about primary sources: 
"Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reputable publisher, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources."
I'm aware these aren't firm policy, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people kill whatever doesn't meet them. With that out of the way, the problem with many Gundam articles is as follows:
# An article is created by an anon, and is nothing more than stats and a blurb. 
# WP:GUNDAM expands the article out to a full length article. No sources are included. Where these stats come from isn't ever said. (I'm presuming from books...somewhere.)
# A wild-eyed, drooling deletionist, fresh from assaulting our other favorite kickball, Star Trek articles, comes by and sees this. With insane screams of "Cruft" they spit forth 549 AfD's. 
# There is an attempt (understandibly hurried) to get some kind of sourcing in the article before it's deleted. 
# Deletionist Wikideathsquad arrives en masse, votes 45939 times with our army of sockpuppets, article is slain.
I'm engaging in a bit of gentle sarcasm and hyperbole above but you get the idea. The problem is, I think, how we interpret WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:OR. It is all well and good to link to an Amazon.com listing of some book and say "This is the source I got this information from." But what information?
I am here to fix your conundrum of dealing with us evil deletionist nutjobbers. :)
===How to defend yourself against "no cited sources"===
It is helpful if you set your cites properly. For example:
Book name, by Book Author. Date Published. ISBN or ISBX Code. Put this after the claim made. For example, if you see have a set of stats, put this at the end of the stat block. If you claim the Gundam was piloted by a person, put this ref at the end of that (and obviously replace my filler with the right book.)
===How to defend against lack of notability===
Notability depends on both subjective notability and mainstream notability. I'll be the first one to admit I didn't do my homework on the RX-78 AfD, and boy do I feel fucking stupid. That is a good example of how articles should be sourced. 
There is plenty of subjective and mainstream notability. However, the sourcing you use to establish this cannot be suspect. GundamOfficial.com is not reliable in this regard. It has the most accurate information, perhaps, but it's also tightly tied to the subject at hand. 
This source below:
The Science of Anime: Mecha-Noids and AI-Super-Bots By Lois H. Gresh, Robert E. Weinberg. Published 2005 Thunder's Mouth Press. 
Has a 40 page section on Gundam and most of the culture. Another one. 
# Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation By Susan Jolliffe Napier. Published 2001 Palgrave Macmillan. . Mentions several mecha and their histories and influence by name. 
===Reliable Sourcing===
The best reliable sources have no direct connections at all to the subject. Don't rely on companies like HobbyJapan and Dengeki for your notability, since they only work on things of this nature. Find mainstream news stories, or mentions in books or collections like the two above. There is a critical difference between "independant entities" and independant sourcing. 
If you must rely on things like HobbyJapan clearly cite AND list out what the source says. If you use a model kit, then point that out in the article. "These stats taken from model kit number XX33-xY, at  thislink.com" or whatever. 
The best thing to do, of course, is as a Wikiproject, make up some kind of template to put on the article that says "This article is in the process of being sourced. Please don't be a cad and delete it". 
Other things:
* Once things are properly sourced, you COULD expand the articles from those sources since you referred to them. (I'm assuming good faith that you have the sources listed. If you need excerpts from the two books above, I can provide them.) The addition of such information is how many Pokemon articles got to FA. 
* Try to minimize the number of armor suits that you can't source reliably. If you must, put several on one page and have at least a couple of solid sources for the page. It's better to do it that way than make multiple articles, because they'll just get deleted.
* If a page goes to AfD make a copy in your user space when it does. There isn't any problem with this sort of thing if you are working on sourcing it. 
* WP:Pokemon and (grimaces) the Star Wars Wikipeoples probably have guidance about tricks of sourcing from primary sources and finding good secondary sources. 
I assume some people here will accept this advice in the spirit in which it was offered. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Don't rely on companies like HobbyJapan and Dengeki for your notability, since they only work on things of this nature." Irrational reasoning. If this was truly a criteria, we couldn't look at scientific journals about meteorology for articles on weather related topics because they focus solely on weather issues. This is amazingly faulty logic. The place to look for information on specialized topics is precisely places like HobbylinkJapan, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous, these are truly reliable and verifiable sources. Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a large majority of Wikipedians disagree, which seems to be the case since those sources haven't prevented the articles from being deleted, then what is the point. I'm not saying don't use them. I'm saying don't depend on them to establish notability. It would seem to me that you would want to use approaches that work and that end up in producing quality articles that don't get nominated for deletion. And I disagree -- I look at scientific journals for information on meteriology rather than meteorological almanacs to determine notability, even though the latter is where I would find hard data and specialied information. Just my thoughts, given in the interest of helping. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that people seem to think notability is subjective. It is not. There is no subjectivity in the notability guidelines, if we show a number of independent, reliable sources commenting on these topics we have met the requirements. Period. There is no room for argument in the notability guidelines. A topic is either notable or it is not, regardless of attempts to sweep our sources under the rug. Kyaa the Catlord 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that defining independant reliable sources is a major issue, and most people, you must admit, don't see those sources as indpendant. Since WP runs by consensus, if the consensus is the sources aren't reliable, will you suggest it's better for the articles to be deleted than to try to do things in a manner that keeps them around? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In cases like that, I give up. Sometimes it is better to throw your hands up when you're faced with a consensus that is obviously incorrect. I've pretty much stopped editting Gundam articles due to these AfDs which, in my view, show more of the ignorance of the topic by the majority of those involved in the AfD debates than any real policy issues. Wikipedia is supposed to strive to avoid a western worldview, but based on the history of Gundam-related AfDs this is not the case in practice. Kyaa the Catlord 08:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  And Elaragirl's argument do have problem. As Kyaa the Catlord said, lets' assume your argument is right, we couldn't look at scientific journals about meteorology for articles on weather related topics because they focus solely on weather issues. Even if we don't depend on them to establish notability, then we still can not depend on science journal for establish notability on some subject, lets say Roche Limit. =_=; I believe only a few mainstream source can explain notability of Roche Limit. Do not forget, there isn't any consensus yet about independant issue of the source and if you say most people, with good faith assumed, can I know who are you referring? I hate to repeat myself, please search for my argument in [RX-78 AfD]. Did you know story of American Civil War if you are not American? Most will not are or barely hear it. Richard H. Anderson? I also know most American does not care about Football (soccer), is that means Football (soccer) is not notable? Hell, no, ask most European men or Asian men. Do you know Roche limit? Now go to fiction side, anyone who never see Babylon 5 know Spoo?Draconins 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, don't tread on ole Fighting Dick. :P (Gods, what a nickname!) It's civil war cruft! Kyaa the Catlord 09:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think that's a shame. You can't change bias by simply telling people they are biased. You have to work within the limits and then slowly change things over time. It seems to me that you would like having articles on this series, so to me (and if I'm being wrong or stupid or naive you can tell me why) working to improve the articles to a point where everyone is happy is a good thing.--ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that certain people are not interested in improving articles, they'd prefer to just delete. And, well, the Gundam articles are an easy target, but when similar problems are pointed out with similar western sci-fi articles, the problems are brushed aside. (For example, X-Wing and Starfury.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please don't get me started on how fucked Star Wars is. If there is a way to improve the articles, they should be improved. Only if they can't should they be deleted. I actually reversed myself in a DRV for that reason, so I'm not being hypocritical here. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *grin* I just don't like the seeming double standard. Our articles are at least as well sourced as theirs, but we have to fight to keep ours when they are given an immediate pass. Kyaa the Catlord 09:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I nominated one that was particularly offensive in terms of lack of sourcing and spades of OR for deletion. I didn't do it to prove a WP:POINT but because it didn't belong. *shrugs* I think -- and I believe -- that if things CAN be improved, they should be. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks Elaragirl, this advice is useful for -any- article and the two books you list could be very helpful.  Since you seem to own them both, would you be willing to provide information from them for citations?  Edward321 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes, as follows : --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Hyaku Shiki is damn sexy, for a robot... Um... :P Kyaa the Catlord 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question regarding notability 

message: The best reliable sources have no direct connections at all to the subject. Don't rely on companies like HobbyJapan and Dengeki for your notability, since they only work on things of this nature. Find mainstream news stories, or mentions in books or collections like the two above. There is a critical difference between "independant entities" and independant sourcing. 
If you must rely on things like HobbyJapan clearly cite AND list out what the source says. If you use a model kit, then point that out in the article. "These stats taken from model kit number XX33-xY, at  thislink.com" or whatever. 
The best thing to do, of course, is as a Wikiproject, make up some kind of template to put on the article that says "This article is in the process of being sourced. Please don't be a cad and delete it". 
Other things:
* Once things are properly sourced, you COULD expand the articles from those sources since you referred to them. (I'm assuming good faith that you have the sources listed. If you need excerpts from the two books above, I can provide them.) The addition of such information is how many Pokemon articles got to FA. 
* Try to minimize the number of armor suits that you can't source reliably. If you must, put several on one page and have at least a couple of solid sources for the page. It's better to do it that way than make multiple articles, because they'll just get deleted.
* If a page goes to AfD make a copy in your user space when it does. There isn't any problem with this sort of thing if you are working on sourcing it. 
* WP:Pokemon and (grimaces) the Star Wars Wikipeoples probably have guidance about tricks of sourcing from primary sources and finding good secondary sources. 
I assume some people here will accept this advice in the spirit in which it was offered. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Don't rely on companies like HobbyJapan and Dengeki for your notability, since they only work on things of this nature." Irrational reasoning. If this was truly a criteria, we couldn't look at scientific journals about meteorology for articles on weather related topics because they focus solely on weather issues. This is amazingly faulty logic. The place to look for information on specialized topics is precisely places like HobbylinkJapan, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous, these are truly reliable and verifiable sources. Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a large majority of Wikipedians disagree, which seems to be the case since those sources haven't prevented the articles from being deleted, then what is the point. I'm not saying don't use them. I'm saying don't depend on them to establish notability. It would seem to me that you would want to use approaches that work and that end up in producing quality articles that don't get nominated for deletion. And I disagree -- I look at scientific journals for information on meteriology rather than meteorological almanacs to determine notability, even though the latter is where I would find hard data and specialied information. Just my thoughts, given in the interest of helping. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that people seem to think notability is subjective. It is not. There is no subjectivity in the notability guidelines, if we show a number of independent, reliable sources commenting on these topics we have met the requirements. Period. There is no room for argument in the notability guidelines. A topic is either notable or it is not, regardless of attempts to sweep our sources under the rug. Kyaa the Catlord 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that defining independant reliable sources is a major issue, and most people, you must admit, don't see those sources as indpendant. Since WP runs by consensus, if the consensus is the sources aren't reliable, will you suggest it's better for the articles to be deleted than to try to do things in a manner that keeps them around? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In cases like that, I give up. Sometimes it is better to throw your hands up when you're faced with a consensus that is obviously incorrect. I've pretty much stopped editting Gundam articles due to these AfDs which, in my view, show more of the ignorance of the topic by the majority of those involved in the AfD debates than any real policy issues. Wikipedia is supposed to strive to avoid a western worldview, but based on the history of Gundam-related AfDs this is not the case in practice. Kyaa the Catlord 08:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  And Elaragirl's argument do have problem. As Kyaa the Catlord said, lets' assume your argument is right, we couldn't look at scientific journals about meteorology for articles on weather related topics because they focus solely on weather issues. Even if we don't depend on them to establish notability, then we still can not depend on science journal for establish notability on some subject, lets say Roche Limit. =_=; I believe only a few mainstream source can explain notability of Roche Limit. Do not forget, there isn't any consensus yet about independant issue of the source and if you say most people, with good faith assumed, can I know who are you referring? I hate to repeat myself, please search for my argument in [RX-78 AfD]. Did you know story of American Civil War if you are not American? Most will not are or barely hear it. Richard H. Anderson? I also know most American does not care about Football (soccer), is that means Football (soccer) is not notable? Hell, no, ask most European men or Asian men. Do you know Roche limit? Now go to fiction side, anyone who never see Babylon 5 know Spoo?Draconins 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, don't tread on ole Fighting Dick. :P (Gods, what a nickname!) It's civil war cruft! Kyaa the Catlord 09:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think that's a shame. You can't change bias by simply telling people they are biased. You have to work within the limits and then slowly change things over time. It seems to me that you would like having articles on this series, so to me (and if I'm being wrong or stupid or naive you can tell me why) working to improve the articles to a point where everyone is happy is a good thing.--ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that certain people are not interested in improving articles, they'd prefer to just delete. And, well, the Gundam articles are an easy target, but when similar problems are pointed out with similar western sci-fi articles, the problems are brushed aside. (For example, X-Wing and Starfury.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please don't get me started on how fucked Star Wars is. If there is a way to improve the articles, they should be improved. Only if they can't should they be deleted. I actually reversed myself in a DRV for that reason, so I'm not being hypocritical here. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *grin* I just don't like the seeming double standard. Our articles are at least as well sourced as theirs, but we have to fight to keep ours when they are given an immediate pass. Kyaa the Catlord 09:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I nominated one that was particularly offensive in terms of lack of sourcing and spades of OR for deletion. I didn't do it to prove a WP:POINT but because it didn't belong. *shrugs* I think -- and I believe -- that if things CAN be improved, they should be. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks Elaragirl, this advice is useful for -any- article and the two books you list could be very helpful.  Since you seem to own them both, would you be willing to provide information from them for citations?  Edward321 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes, as follows : --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sourcing

message: The Science of Anime: Mecha-Noids and AI-Super-Bots By Lois H. Gresh, Robert E. Weinberg. Published 2005 Thunder's Mouth Press. 
Pg 33 lays out the background of mecha in general, conflating the importance of Gundam with Metropolis and Gigantor. 
Pg: 39 starts off with a review of Gundam franchise history. Notable quote:
 (emphasis mine)
Pg 55 talks about mobile suits, including the RX-78 and the MSK-008_Dijeh by name (which is why I reversed my vote at DRV). Useful cite :
Pg 63 has a very disgustingly long list of a large number of mobile suits / robots that introduced new elements into the design of mecha. 
Pg 66 compares Gundam to later things, such as Battletech and Macross, and how it's unlikely anime or mecha would have evolved as much as it did without the confluence of Gundam's influence. 
Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation By Susan Jolliffe Napier. Published 2001 Palgrave Macmillan. . 
Mentions several mecha and their histories and influence by name, including the RX-78, the RGM-79 GM, the MSN-00100 Hyaku Shiki (with about a bajillion images of that), and some more. 
I'll provide anything I can on these, although I'm fairly certain that the Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke book has had at least one reprint since my copy was published. Those are the only two books I own on Anime, so I may wander out to the bookstore to pick up something else later on today, if it would be useful. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hyaku Shiki is damn sexy, for a robot... Um... :P Kyaa the Catlord 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: I've created an infobox template for mobile suits at Template:Infobox Mobile Suit. Instructions for use of the template, along with an example are at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit.
Have a look and see if its of any use to your Wikiproject. I've updated a couple of After Colony Gundams with this... see Gundam Heavyarms for an example. -- saberwyn 10:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats template 

message: I've been working on making a mass-dump of mobile suits for proper WP-ness. Right now, I'm working on my favorite series, so just mobile suits from the 08th MS team. Here's what it looks like right now, and still needs a lot of work.   Just a heads up to the people who are trying for suit articles. We have a better chance if they're grouped together via a grouping of real-world significance, like the series they appeared in, versus what "family" of suit they are, etc. Shrumster 19:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... that is FA worthy. Anyone going after that for sourcing or notability is stark raving insane. I know sourcing is an issue, and currently I'm trying to figure out ways to improve the sourcing for these articles. If you need any help let me know. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, that is what I have proposed earlier, but there is 1 glitch.  There are suits that appeared in more than 1 series, like the MS-05, MS-06, MS-09 and MS-14 series.  A link to the first page might be better than having a short description on where it appeared. (Okay, the Zakus should probably at least have its own page, it is the only mecha that is not a Gundam type that got its own book published, still finding the copy I was reading).  Another problem I am seeing is that most of the sources are Bandai, that's no secondary sources at all.  I will be doing something similar with the first Gundam series, I have some sales figures of that series and maybe the 08th MS team suits can link to the original one. MythSearchertalk 05:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that's what I'm planning. For suits that appeared in more than one series (that don't have their own article), we have a short blurb about its role in the article's series subject, and then have a "main article" redirect to the first series that the suit appeared in. For the 08th MS team page, I'm planning on dumping the info for mecha like the Magella, the non-ground type Zakus, etc. into the future lists of the series they first appeared in (I'm guessing it's MSG original for most of them, especially the capital ships). Shrumster 10:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and no problem with lack of secondary sourcing at all. WP:FICTION rules say that daughter pages in support of a particular article need not have their own, independent notability as long as the parent article (in this case, the parent series) passes WP:N. Here's a non-Gundam example of an article I've been working on for a while  working on those principles. Shrumster 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course, the real-world sales figures would be a great help. More interesting info to bulk up the articles' notability and interest. Hell, if we could find newsletters of some modeling clubs detailing suits used as winning entries, that'd rock too. Shrumster 10:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Reconstruction Bid 

message: MalikCarr, who appears to not get the whole point of sourcing an article, deprodded (properly) MSN-03 Jagd Doga. Well and good. Provided a collection of links that , while not independant, are decent enough to start with. Well and good.
However, much of the article was NOT found at any of those sources (and yes, I checked every one). Thus, what I've done is removed the unsourced stuff to the talk page. Once a proper source is found, it can be put right back. This allows for :
# Hard work not to be merely deleted or destroyed but available for everyone to see 
# Sourcing of unsourced things to avoid ugly  tags. 
If anyone has a problem with this, please scream at me on my talk page or here. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 12:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (sigh) Sourcing. 

message: In choosing to make a headcount, rather than concensus (why do they put that "this is not a vote" template on somethng that obviously is?) in this mess, GRBerry has now added his endorsement to the "editors' votes are not important" status quo shared by the deletionist camp. Which is strange, really, because when you look at his past history, GRBerry really -isn't- that much of a deletionist. Seems they come in all flavors, shapes and sizes these days... As Farix said, the evidence of a systemic bias in favor of deletion is mounting. With a norm like this, I wonder why anyone would bother trying to improve an article, since your say in whether or not it should be kept, or that of those who work on similar things, is irrelevant. 
Additionally, it would seem to me that, based on some remarks added to the deletion review, Wikipedia is for Wikipedians, not your average person looking for information on a subject, since apparently anyone who doesn't have an account and doesn't make many edits is a "single purpose account" whose opinion doesn't matter for beans. Suddenly my argument about good faith with inclusion vs. deletion makes so much more sense... MalikCarr 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I tried to improve some (non-Gundam-related) articles up for AfD before. Nothing, they got deleted as well. One problem with the AfD system is that a bunch of people will come along, say "delete", and never come back even if the article is improved substantially. Then, when the admin just comes along and counts their "vote", he sees more delete "votes" and deletes the article. Sigh. Shrumster 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While I've normally been supportive of cutting down on some of the Gundam articles, that was.. well.. a fucked up AfD closing. I mean, really, what the fuck. Even if the reason to delete was more than that comment that was left, it was really in bad taste. -- Ned Scott 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huzzah for Precedent 

message: This little test speaks volumes http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia/ --HellCat86 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that. Shrumster 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh exploitable. This could be quite a potent resource in the future. MalikCarr 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This only says that we have flaws, and no one disputes that. Not every single AfD is going to be perfect. We do try to have a little faith in our fellow editors to have good reasons to give deletion arguments, and we do try to not assume they're just performing a test (that doesn't actually prove it's point). Instead of bitching and moaning about all this, how about we get back to editing articles? We've got so much to do and have so much potential with this subject that it's insane to be crying over such trivial things. Don't sell yourself short, we can do better than the articles that were deleted. Does it matter that XX354 JJ Y Gundam was red and had green feet? No, get over it. Meanwhile, more core Gundam topics desperately need your help. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Bah, being so optimistic about this whole affair is just asking to get kicked by the powers that be. If you recall, expert deletionist Moreschi even stated a truce in that he was done nominating Gundam articles for deletion; true to his word, MER-C nominated them from then on and Moreschi endorsed. That's the kind of environment we work in on Wikipedia; give an inch and they take a yard. At any rate, my Zeong article got a B-ranking from WP:Anime and Manga, so I suppose I could have some faith for a while longer that the system does work. MalikCarr 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those who are discouraged 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_V
I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to do it, unfortunately. You might wanna improve or merge it. Jtrainor 21:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page could use some cleanup 

message: "What I lack is the courage to accept myself for who I am." Sasahara says it in the Genshiken manga, and while he could be quoting anything, I rather get the feeling he's quoting something from Gundam. Sound familiar to anyone? Keep in mind that it might have been translated differently for Gundam. He also says "God, my own father never even hit me." earlier in the manga, and it is confirmed that he's quoting Gundam there. Anyone know which series and episode though?--SeizureDog 11:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a Gundam quote? 

message: This article is essentially a fanpage. I don't know if there's anything salvagable. If not, I'll take it to AfD. --Wafulz 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also RMS-099 Rick Dias, which was previously deleted. --Wafulz 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is not that bad, it seem like a list with description. Maybe the problem it is not an fan page but rather in-universe style? 202.154.30.27 13:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Moving seperate MA info to specific series mecha description would be better. MythSearchertalk 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, just a note, notability aside, the correct name for this page should be Mobile Armour of the Universal Century. Armour's is possessive. I moved it there now, just so you know. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mobile Armour's of the universal century (gundam universe)]] 

message: From the WP:Spoiler page, I see that under When not to use spoiler warnings, it has mentioned not to use spoilers in fictional characters and sections titled plot.  I'd say we stop using spoiler tags in all character pages, plot summaries in story articles and mobile weapon pages and make it a guideling of the Gundam wikiproject. Anyone oppose to the idea? MythSearchertalk 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spoiler tags 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MS-06_Zaku_II
Gundam x105 05:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Major revamp on the MS-06 Zaku II, from what I am seeing in the AfD discussion, there is no way it will be deleted since the consensus there is to keep instead of delete(even the Man In Black shows promising arguement that he is turning from delete to keep or at least indifferent) The only opposer is the nom, who is ignoring facts and assuming bad faith and TTN, who did not comment on the article after it was modified and improved(since it was just done and I doubt he got time :) MythSearchertalk 08:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I highly doubt it is the most commonly depicted variation, the Ground type would have more grounds because the MG Ver. 2.0 is MS-06J. (The original if MS-06F since it is the only type appearing in the first Gundam)  I will see if I can find some source on the R-1, it did got its own MG model.  MythSearchertalk 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some help here? 

message: Again an article about mobile suits was nominated for deletion, this time the Gundam Development Project from 0083. If someone has real world informations or knows something to improve the article, well, help is required. I don't know much about this suits so I can't do much. Diabound 11:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one I am not really keen on fighting for.  I like the suits, but it really does not have any real world impact.  It would be fine if other 0083 suits are merged into this one, since it would be way to long for including into the 0083 article no matter how little info we have on each mecha.  However, the problem would be most of the other suits in 0083 are already included into either the Zaku article or GM article, hmmm...  I guess the Neue Ziel and Gerbera Tetra could be merged. MythSearchertalk 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I really don't have time tonight to do anything more on the topic, guess it will have to settle like that for now.  It will need some clean up, some ref, and main article links to 0083 article and from 0083 article, and hopefully a bot fixing the double redirects. MythSearchertalk 13:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gundam Development Project]] proposed for deletion 

message: is a mess. It is described and organized in an entirely in-universe way, and has many, many, many redundant images. Zaku II, for example, is linked seven times, not counting the many, many redirects.
So how can we reorganize this? It don't think by faction is a good idea, since that's a in-universe way or organizing things and because so many suits are used by so many different factions (particulary the Zaku and its variants). 
What would be a good alternate header? Preferably, one we can link; "Early Universal Century mobile weapons ( - U.C.0110)" is entirely mystifying to someone not already steeped in Gundam mythos. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an opposite opinion, arrange them into series base articles, only having a link to each of the series like List of Mobile Weapons in Mobile Suit Gundam, List of Mobile Weapons in Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam. Each of the lists will have links to separate links to notable suits anyway.  This way, the template will not be extremely large.  MythSearchertalk 07:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're suggesting just leaving this alone until the list merges have been done, then retooling it just to link to the lists? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are a lot of articles using this template right now, it would be easier to just change the template than to go into each article and changing the template name. So yes, that is what I suggest. MythSearchertalk 07:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another template problem - {{tl|Early Universal Century Mobile weapons}} 

message: I just reorganised the Striker pack page since the page contains 2/3 of non-striker pack stuff and at least 1/3 of out of CE similarities.  It is simply in-universe and fan speculation and OR in any sense if it is remained as the Striker Pack page.  So I moved it and maybe will give it more attention in modifying it to a less in-universe style.  If anyone got time in their hands, feel free to cut down the lengthy striker pack stuff that is just plot summary.  I feel that this is a page that we might be able to keep because I have some sources saying these addons back packs makes it more realistic and was used in quite some stories of Gundam series, and seeing how they continuously designing these units for newer series, it is probably the second popular idea other than the transformation systems. MythSearchertalk 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striker Pack page moved 

message: User:Funkeymonk88  has created the articles Phase 1: Angry Eyes, Sword Impulse Gundam, Strike Dagger, and M1 Astrays.
This user copied the synopsis from  and pasted it into Phase 1: Angry Eyes. This article should be deleted per WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICTION, and WP:EPISODE.
He basically did the same thing in the three articles he created about the mobile suits, where the text and images in the articles are taken from MAHQ.net. (Sword Impulse Gundam , Strike Dagger , M1 Astrays .) --Silver Edge 09:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest requesting a move after things cool down a bit.  This way, we can also keep the history on the new place. MythSearchertalk 16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Funkeymonk88 

message: This project's flagship article Gundam has no references and this WikiProject not only endorses such an article but also is used to generate more unreferenced articles. I do not see how that is a Wikiproject to "collaborate on encyclopedic work" as stated at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gundam is unreferenced 

message: Well, I implemented the class and height tables, then put them into effect in the articles where the template is in use. I made a snazzy switch table to link article sections of Mobile weapons, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Infobox MS Gundam}} again 

message: Why does WP:CE redirect here? I'm admittedly biased, but I believe it should redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineering as Civil engineering is frequently abbreviated "CE". ZueJay (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a long story.  CE stands for Cosmic Era and was the newest timeline of the Gundam metaseries in 2003~2006.  Newest means it attracts most attention and a project called Wikiproject:Cosmic Era was started for the sole means of making pages for that timeline.  Most of the pages got dumped because they follow no wiki rules of notability and a lot of them is just copy and paste from the internet.  The project page was also having almost no active users since most of the CE lovers are rather newbies of wiki following google or something that came and put tons of speculation to make things worse, and of course most disregard the project page anyway.  Anyway, a huge debate got on with deletionist trying to AfD all of the weapons pages and was called the AfD from hell or something along that line, and people noticed someone started up the WP:CE and it was then changed to WP:GUNDAM instead with the little notability Cosmic Era has(new stuff usually have not much real world impact).  That is why WP:CE redirects here, it was the original project name before anyone is active on this project here now.  I am sure that not much active user will be against you for redirecting it to civil engineering project since that is much more frequently used and I don't think there's much Cosmic Era fans(which mostly are kids in where I live and seldom get into anything that got rules) left here anyway.  I will be happy to see it done that way, feel free to do so. MythSearchertalk 17:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should direct to Civ Eng., however as a legacy guard on that page you might want to point out that WP:CE used to redirect here and provide a link to this project out of courtesy. David Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you guys for your courtesy on this. I didn't want to just up and change something without chatting about it first. The CE project will definitely display both the Gundam and Copyedit links. Thanks ZueJay (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since it was only used 17 times (other than this talk page), and hasn't been used recently, I think it would be safe to give the redirect to WikiProject Civil engineering. I've left a small note that says ""WP:CE" redirects here. For the Cosmic Era project, see WikiProject Gundam." on the top of their page, just in case. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'll make sure the note stays there. ZueJay (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut 

message: User:Oscarthecat is attempting to mass-nom a very large amount of Gundam-related material with a copy-pasted rationale that does not apply to the stuff he's nominating. Another attempt at mass-removal of Gundam material, without a cause. Also note his sidekick who is voting the same on every page.
Perhaps people will pay more attention to MalikCarr now. Also, I am hereby declaring my intent to take most of these to DRV if by some chance they're deleted-- it's as blatant a case of bad nomination as I've ever seen.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F90 Gundam Formula 90
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of After Colony mobile units
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cosmic Era mobile units
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universal Century mobile units
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RB-79 Ball
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mobile suit operating systems
Jtrainor 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another attempted mass-delete= 

message: It got AfDed. Well, I agree that the article was quite poor written so I understand why it got that. But I believe that it should be keep and try to improve it. Unfortunely, I'm not resourceful as MythSearcher and after all I have done, it still not that great. Please improve it so we can go and vote keep heartfully. L-Zwei 05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have a good idea, why don't you ask for what you need(I mean all of you here), and I will go find it, so you can make it an inline citation.  It would be impossible to find sources and writting all of those articles at the same time.  MythSearchertalk 06:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a hard call, very hard indeed.  It is so not worth mentioning if we just look at the 2 shows it is in, yet the real life impact of it seems to exceed a lot of other stuff around.  Some vandal actually went to the extreme in vandalising a statue to imitate Hyakushiki, which is like the most notable non-fan style occurance of any Gundam related display of an mobile suit... yet, nothing else is out of the normal, other mecha that I will route for having its own article normally got their own modelling competition or large scale fan projects going on, yet this one only got the vandalism notable. MythSearchertalk 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give Hyaku Shiki a chance 

message: Hello there.
I just wanted to inform everyone here I have started a new article, Music of Cosmic Era. I have noticed that not a single one of Gundam SEED soundtracks have an article here on wikipedia. I understand that most are not notable on their own, so I have created a "Music of" style page. Please look at the Music of Final Fantasy VII page to get an idea of what the finished article might look like.
I'm telling you this, because there are 40 plus CDs to cover, and I'm not sure I have the energy/resources to do it all on my own. Once this page is a bit more complete, I plan to have the Gundam seed pages have a "link to main article" link under the current audio sections.
If everybody here is too busy to help, that is totally fine, I'll just keep going, albeit a bit slow...
Thankyou! happypal (Talk | contribs) 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the article to the Cosmic Era section of the  template. --Silver Edge 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music of Cosmic Era 

message: I suggest we get a complete list of articles under our jurisdiction, go through them, find ones with problems, and mark them on the list. That way we know what needs to be done, and when something is fixed, it can be tagged on the list accordingly. Jtrainor 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup stuff