Talk:Gundam Mk-II

message: I know that the Mk-II have inspired a car design in real life, the car designer even took the time to draw a Mk-II next to the concept design notes and the notes is currently somewhere online.  Anyone can get a hold of those and upload it as a source to prove the cultural significance of the unit? MythSearchertalk 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that would certainly go leaps and bounds to establishing further notability of the Mk. II. As a main Gundam unit I doubt it's in any danger of a WP:NOTE ruckus, but hey, the more the merrier. MalikCarr 10:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here would be that picture I saw was at least 4~5 years old(that is when I saw it) and is extremely hard to find. MythSearchertalk 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Somebody I know got a copy. :Image:VX2.jpg MythSearchertalk 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cultural significance"? Bah, still sounds like it's pandering to deletionists... nevertheless, I guess that's a valid strategy, so I'm stuck with it for the time being. >_> MalikCarr 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, way back into the first mass deletion act for the CE Mobile weapons(when WP:GUNDAM was formed and WP:CE became a sub link) there is this deletionist who keep bashing about cultural significance is required to keep an article.  Although this is not necessary for wikipedia's standards no matter how deletionists try to twist thw words, I have decided we should always take a step ahead and meet their requirements to shut their mouths so we do not have to explain to them that they are twisting the policies. MythSearchertalk 06:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration in Car design 

message: Seems AMIB wants to continue the war on basically every Gundam article I've significantly contributed too. I ought to make like that other anonymous vandal and get some new accounts, this one seems to be a magnet for unwanted attention and edit warring... MalikCarr 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MalikCarr, I must say, insisting the edit war is not something really helpful, placing them as plot sections have been done in a lot of fiction related articles and are commonly well accepted and are less stupid sounding than overly exerting out-of-universe stuff inside the paragraphs. MythSearchertalk 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War expands 

message: :Image:ConanmkII.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ConanmkII.jpg

message: Can you stop blindly reverting and at least keep the links in the better form?  Also, the tags only have little cosmetic issues and if you stop removing them and use the time more efficiently, and let GundamRus and AMIB have more time in their rewrites and disscussion of creating a better article, we will all have a better time and the tags would be gone in a breeze. MythSearchertalk 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we start some real work? BTW, the correct tag is AM-in-universe, not in universe if one really has to be used. MythSearchertalk 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless recently revised, the AM-in-universe tag does not scale horizontally and can create layout issues if used other than at the top of an article. It does scale, NMGundamsRus (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guys, guys, guys... 

message: This is far too much angst over something essentially meaningless. Let's stop arguing about whether this was first or earliest or whatever, since the sources don't really seem to exist, and focus on the more-interesting facts that can possibly be referenced. We have an interesting fact (Pierre Bernard is an anime enthusiast and was working on the show at the time); can we move past speculation that he created this image? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
first
 
earliest
 Why bother?

message: What exactly about this passage:
:The wrecked Mk. II was brought back into service as a part of the AEUG independent task force (otherwise known as the Gundam Team) near the beginning of the sequel series Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ. Though technologically inferior to many mobile weapons employed by the newly-arrived Axis/Neo Zeon forces under director Haman Khan, it saw action throughout the series until being critically damaged (once again) at the end of the First Neo Zeon War. The unique G-Defenser was never recovered, effectively terminating the "Super Gundam" configuration for the remainder of the Mk. II's appearances.
resembles the 'good' example of writing about fiction:
:Trillian is a fictional character from Douglas Adams's radio, book and now film series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the first book, Trillian is introduced to the main character Arthur Dent on a spaceship. In her backstory, she was taken away from Earth when the space alien Zaphod Beeblebrox met her at a party.
Because to me, it could be plopped directly in the the example of how NOT to write about fiction per WP:CYF: 
:Trillian is Arthur Dent's girlfriend. She was taken away from Earth by Zaphod when he met her at a party. She meets Dent while travelling with Zaphod." 
 
The 'good example' talks about characters, identifies clearly that the fictional works etc. etc. etc. None of that is present in the sample passage from the article. - GundamsRus (some setting on this computer wont let me log in)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.20 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Section states that it occurs within the fiction? Yes. Makes note of its functionality within said fiction? Yes. Says it gets punked at the end of the series (vs. the end of the war)? Yes. What's your point? MalikCarr (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing about fiction 

message: So Jtrainer, do you have ANY scrap of evidence from a reliable source to back your claim of 'first' widespread exposure, or is it simply your original research? Because according to your edit history notes, there are approximately 6 years you have not accounted for in your 'case'- GundamsRus
(and does anyone know what settings would make IE simply spin and spin and spin from the log in screen and never get to display ANY wikipedia pages? 207.69.137.29 (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he does. It's called the publishing date. Z Gundam was released in the United States in 2004; the Late Night appearance came before it. If there was an earlier appearance, it was a bootleg, and I don't think Wikipedia should be covering that sort of nonsense when you consider its hardline stance on copyright infringement. Ergo, for the purposes of Wikipedia, it was first. MalikCarr (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Backed by nothing other than your/jtrainer's claim that there were no appearances before Conan. You need reliable sources to support such a statement within a WP article.GundamsRus (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US release date of Z Gundam is listed in the anime's article and many other places, as you would know if you had checked. Jtrainor (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SO WHAT - just because this Conan appearance is before official release it PROVIDES ABSOLUTLY NO PROOF THAT THE CONAN APPEARANCE WAS BEFORE ANY OTHER APPEARANCE - the claim of FIRST requires proof that it was the FIRST, not just that it was before some other event. - GundamsRus
207.69.137.34 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that, is exactly why I changed it to one of the earlier appeareances.  The internet is here, so it will be very hard to proof first.  However, it is extremely easy to see that it is earlier than the official release, thus it does not have to be sourced if it only claimed to be an earlier appearance. MythSearchertalk 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can convince Jrainor to quit reverting to versions that claim 'first', I will quit tagging/removing that claim.GundamsRus (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  claims of 'FIRST' exposure 

message: I've protected the page for three days, due to the ongoing edit war.  I'm sure that I have protected The Wrong Version, but I don't care.  This is a silly little thing you're all fighting over.
I want the editors involved – and you know who you are – to behave like rational, reasonable adults and talk it out.  Pretend you've never met each other before and don't hate each other's guts.  Pretend you're at a job interview and you're trying to make a good impression.
Pretend that there's a Wikipedia admin watching who feels very strongly about the importance of our policy demanding civility from all contributors.
Don't condescend.  Don't YELL.  Don't post while angry, drunk, or in anything other than a calm, cool, and placid state of mind, when you're full of feelings of warmth and love for your fellow editors.  Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. 
When you sort things out and reach some manner of consensus, feel free to use the {editprotected} template.
If any of the editors here decide to move their dispute and edit warring to another article while this one is protected, they ought to be aware that my blocking button is itchy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quit it.  All of you.  Page protected. 

message: Jtrainer, can you provide a link to the post(S) within that source that speculates about US release. The ones I read only speculated about whether / who on the Conan show was Gundam fan. But it was an awkward layout and I may have missed the comment(s) speculating about US release. If you or someone else cannot point out which post(s) comment about potential US release, then the article needs to be reverted to a version that does not claim the posts were speculating about US release. GundamsRus 207.69.137.11 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i went back to the source and found the switch to thread view. There is no comment in this thread about speculation of US release, so I have changed the article to not be claiming inaccurate statements from the source. If there is some other thread that makes the speculation between conan show and US release, that will need it's own citation.GundamsRus (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation about US release on GML 

message: Malikcarr - it seems to be your claim that it (the image in the 'bumper') is made from/based on the __model kit__ - What support do you have to prove that?GundamsRus (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like saying Will Smith's character had some kind of Audi in that awful movie I, Robot - you look at it and it's obvious. I encourage you to find an image of an old 1/144 HG Gundam Mk. II in unmodified condition; they're indisputably the same. I'd snap a photo of the model myself (I was able to snag one at the SDCC in 2004, lucky me), but my camera is presently borked. MalikCarr (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until you have a _source_ to _verify_ the claim that it was the __model kit__ and not a shot from the movie or a plushie a fan had made or any of a number of other potential (but perhaps unlikely) sources, you shouldnt be removing the {fact} tag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GundamsRus (talk • contribs) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. Should I find a citation from a reliable source to say the sky is blue? This isn't a remotely debatable claim by any stretch of the imagination - read a model catalog sometime. MalikCarr (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt it is a model kit, but saying it is THE HG kit is abit too much and hard to source that it is discon.  I changed it to model, that is sufficient. MythSearchertalk 10:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conan from the model kit