Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam 00

Fanron

Fanron comes from where? The press release and Newtype Japan only say Setsuna F. Seiei. :/ The same for "Middle East". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.49.151.44 (talk • contribs)

Could we use a better picture of Gundam Exia?

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)

That is if you can find another model of the Exia gundam.--Zeta26 08:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro/Outro Themes Now Added

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)

• I altered it slightly since a table looks rather out of place here, and I removed L'Arc En Ciel from the Staff section since technically, they are not staff members. Hope you don't mind. Joppyhoppy 12:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Premiere

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)

Reception

Is this really needed? It seems like it's just being used so random fans can add their opinions. The Destiny article once had similar and it became a nightmare of bickering and criticism.--HellCat86 22:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing the unsourced information and only allow sourced information in that section. --Silver Edge 02:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think even the Anime News Network's note is not really meaningful. The pilots of Gundam Wing only became an independent group as part of a plot twist in the the latter stages of the show, and Gundam Wing wasn't the only series that has such plot twist (X and Seed quickly comes to mind). One might as well comment that the Gundams in 00 have a red chin/mouth thingy. I see Gundam 00 bearing a much stronger resemblance to the unrelated series Full Metal Panic (private military organization with vastly superior technology with a peace-making objective). -Pan Sola 00:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The parallel connection ANN drew has nothing to do with "an independent group of Gundam pilots, challenging the world's powers for the sake of obtaining peace for all mankind". It was about "hyper-powerful Gundam units appearing at various locales to execute slightly-less-than-Dynasty-Warriors-level mayhem in synchronized phases of a paramilitary operation". -Pan Sola 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just a pointless excuse to express subjective and unfavourable opinions about the show. Anime News Network does not represent the viewers reception of Gundam 00 singlehandly. Kaioshin Sama 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, need I remind you that ANN qualifies as a notable, reliable reference when it comes to anime? Sooner or later, this article has got to include a reception section, if it is ever to make it past B-level. As a someone who has made Madlax the third (!) featured article about anime on the entire Wikipedia, I know first-hand that the reception section is the biggest pain in the ass to write. Therefore, while I certainly agree that no single source can cover the entirety of audience reaction to the show, I envisioned that section as a base for further expansion and expected fellow editors to extend it with other reviews and citations. Instead, I see it deleted with rationales ranging from "ANN is just a single source" to "I don't think it looks like Wing, I think it looks like Fumoffu", etc. (The latter would be original research, btw.) If you don't like an opinion and it's not sourced, delete it. If you don't like an opinion and it IS sourced, find a different one and add it to the section. That's the principle of neutral point of view. This is an encyclopedia, after all. I therefore request that the section is restored and expanded with further opinions.

EDITED: Oh, and I forgot to mention that deleting information outright is a violation of the official editing policy. --Koveras ^☭ 17:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the section and removed all unsourced text. --Silver Edge 03:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I'll keep an eye out for other reviews and reactions (it's just that I visit ANN far too often). ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 09:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter remains that the reception section is aligned favorably to only one opinion expressed by a sole website and most certainly does not reflect other opinions stated on several other blogs, both Japanese and English, as well as several sources. The series is merely ongoing, barely a month has passed since its release, therefore I don't see the real "need" of sticking to a so-called "opinion" based on watching a single episode of the series. A far more important statistic, at this moment of time, would be ratings gathered from the official sources, on how the series has been fairing, since that's the only neutral and stable opinion we have, therefore the flux here should be stability due to the series just having started. I therefore propose that we only note the television ratings for the series, as that might influence how the series is to be planned, rather than sticking to premature opinions based on watching a few minutes of the series. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 06:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have the ratings, add them to the section. If you have other opinions, add them. I don't see any reason to remove the old content until a new, better one is added. As soon as the said ratings are there (btw, I have never seen anything like that in an anime article yet), I won't object anymore. :) As for stability, don't expect an article about a TV series to be stable until its original run is over, it just won't work. --Koveras ^☭ 07:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with sources

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)

Factual Errors in the Show

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Gundam 00 Nations and Factions

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)

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)

I'm willing to support it, but let's wait for later info first. Ominae 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wana as an insert song

A recent edit lists the song as being used as an insert song. I'm not sure I'd agree. The slow version is used in the final minutes of 2 episodes so far right before the actual ED. SEED and Destiny used to do similar, with either a slow build up playing over the final minutes or for more dramatic cliffhangers just leaping into the ED unannounced.--HellCat86 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I do not think Wana should be listed as an IS, it is an ending theme, after all.{User:lpjz290|lpjz290]]

Staff

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)

Eh, it was there anyways. I just reformatted it and added some stuff.
Fallacies (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The characters section.
Fallacies (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Plot

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 "World Socialist Revolution" (世界社会主義革命) and the Chinese "People's Liberation Army" (人民解放軍). -- Fallacies 05:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Joppyhoppy has reversed the modifications I previously submitted to the "Human Reform League's" name translation, on the justification of insufficient backing in canon for a communistic-themed name. Though I agree, I would note that the fansub-based "Human Reform/Reformed League/Alliance" has similarly little justification and is less sensitive to the usage in Japanese. The meaning of "Human Reform" is, if unrelated to communistic concepts, also unclear in English. Further information required from canon. -- Fallacies 10:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Since we already have a Nations and Factions page, is it ok to simply and link there instead of having a giant spew of information on the countries?
Fallacies (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

World Map

Please refer to this image before deciding to edit the member states of the 3 powers:
http://img196.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=99080_1194386518964_122_380lo.jpg

Note that the map is approximate, and that certain unmarked locations are visibly marked in the actual episode 2, from which the image was derived.
Fallacies (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We are at war with Eastasia: We have always been at war with Eastasia. Identity0 (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?lpjz290

What does 00 mean?

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)

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)

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidcoast (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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).

00F and Manga

I think this section should be changed. I've been buying Gundam Ace for the last year or so and really, it isn't telling the story of 00. Alot of the main cast appear in important roles and it is occuring close to the anime story but I wouldn't call it an adaptation. The only real 00 manga adaptation running is the one in Kero Kero Ace.--HellCat86 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit at will, I suppose. If somebody has a problem with your opinion, they'll respond by modifying or reverting it.

Fallacies (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree some mention of the manga ( Gundam OOF , V and P) should at least be mentioned69.86.55.108 (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're stupid.. that section was already in the article but someone moved it. How stupid are you to not find it.. see it here, List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 media. --staka (T ・C) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So there's no mention of PLANTs or ZAFT (from Gundam Seed) in Gundam 00?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok I know Wiki is not a forum but every time I read this page the technically it's all the same universe comment annoys me. Turn A definately suggests that all Gundams BEFORE SEED are united. But it was also made before SEED. So anything after Turn A is not included in its timeline relation. It's even shown that way in that image from the Turn A page from some video game or something.

Also 00 has vaguely turned into a remake of Zeta with sprinkles of the Cosmic Era and Wing. So technically you could say that it has its basis off previous Gundams like SEED And S Destiny did.69.207.32.133 (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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).

Characters section

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)

Japanese pronounciation

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)

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).

The japanese are using the katakana system to pronounce english words instead of really using english pronunciation. Therefore it is useful for those people who wanna know why and how japanese pronounce english words.--58.26.136.5 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Arrows or A-laws?

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)

Officially, it's A-Laws, as seen on GN-XIII's boxart. The Slimy One 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Setsuna's real name

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))

Season 2 Opening

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)

You don't watch many animes do you? Animes can change their opening for no reason just because they feel like it or they got bored with the old one. It doesn't neccessary have anything to do with a timeskip. --203.82.91.34 (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gundam title

the picture showing the title of mobile suit gundam 00 is in Japanese, yet in the sci-fi channel they already showed the title in english. Dont you think we should change the picture in the main article? just saying.Haseo445 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've switched it out with a DVD cover. Title screens don't make for good infobox illustrations as they don't convey anything about the series and differ from language to language. A cover or promotional image illustrating the main characters and/or artistic design of the series is always much better. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but you're missing the point though...this is the English Wikipedia, so why don't we get an English title? Mobile suit gundam 00 has been licensed for north America so why not put the English one though? .Haseo445 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1) The image of the Japanese DVD cover was already available, so it make sense to use it instead of upload a variant. We would also have a hard time justifying both covers. 2) The project has no real preference for language, though some suggest that Japanese covers should be preferred. --Farix (Talk) 02:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

i know that it was available, but that doesn't mean thats only one we should use. it wouldnt be that hard to justify, and you know it. The Wikipedia itself is in english preference so its better to use the english title logo or the english DVD. its not that big of a deal, we can easily do that. its more suitable to use that one than the japanese one.

and as for wikipedia, i find it strane for someone to prefer a japanes title within english article. point is, english article should have english DVD covercase. i can understand some of these didnt come out of america giving obligatoin to not change it, but theres an english one out already and theres no trouble putting it here.Haseo445 (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also one cover will be deleted as a near duplicate of the other. So there is no point in having both covers. If we really want to get anal about it and avoid a systemic bias, we would insists that only first published cover be included in the infobox, which will always be the Japanese cover. Insisting on English covers, however, encourages a systemic bias. Just like we don't insists on only English sources, we don't insist on only English covers. --Farix (Talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

+1 systemic bias is wrong even it's for an not memorable issue like this one. Any non-craps with dully completed Fair use rational DVD covers will do. The choice of the cover is left to the courtesy of first one to make the effort put it properly in the article. In that case it's probably an amateur of Gundam who put the cover asap along with the Japanese DVD release. To go further i do know one manga article which infobox image cover isn't either Japanese nor English and yet no one yelled because of that. --KrebMarkt 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, a second cover would be redundant and probably get deleted anyway. The current image is fine and there's no real reason to change it. Edward321 (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

how is it systemic bias? our Japanese sources get translated, so why don't we translate the Japanese cover by adding the English one?. also the manga of mobile suit 00 doesn't have an English version so there's no point trying to look for one, poor example there. I'm not saying keep both covers, i mean remove the Japanese one and put the English one. I mean what if someone tries to find this DVD but couldn't find it because he only remembered it as having Japanese characters and thought the English one was a different series? It has happened to many of my friends.

I know you can use a Japanese one, but since there's an English one, why not place it there?its a benefit not an burden. its nothing wrong. it doesn't encourage systemic bias. DO we honestly know if the japanese cover and english cover look the same anyways? they could look different than just the logo aswell which could be another reason why we should change itHaseo445 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

i was just to talk about the same thing....Is it so hard to change it back to the english one? i read systemic bias but half of it doesn't make sense to me. It would be helping more of the readers than the article itself if you placed an English cover. Because sometimes they differ and we wont be able to differentiate from them.

i could understand if there was no English version yet.Linder1990 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't help when you start dragging out a sockpuppets to support your arguments. But your argument has no merit. We are not here to sell the series or to help people shop. We are here to inform them about a notable anime series and its production and development. And though WP:ANIME is not as strict as WP:BOOK — they insist on the first or oldest available published cover — we still are not going to switch images when a good illustrative image is already in place. --Farix (Talk) 22:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as i know there is something called alphabet using that something called alphabet i'm sure you can find the Gundam 00 dvd regardless the form and the appearance of the DVD. To go further in your flawed argumentation. Gundam 00 is released into multiple DVD volume so should we line up every English DVD covers of this series so you will be able to recognize and differentiate them ? That not all what should we do when they will release their DVD box sets edition should replace the cover again to keep up with the latest cover ?

Your inability to understand the meaning of the WP:BIAS is saddening but i will give you an personalized summary the English Wikipedia isn't something from and for Americans exclusively. For non-US people not having an US cover isn't a problem. --KrebMarkt 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

@KrebMarkt: Let's not bite the new user here, please.

@Haseo445&Linder1990: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Additionally, under WP:FAIRUSE, one image is plenty. I can assure you that another image would easily be deleted as another free-use alternative is already up. Further, consensus stands that the Japanese cover should be used first and foremost for infobox images, so I see no reason this should be changed. Additionally, a "English cover helps readers" argument doesn't fly at all. As Farix said, Wikipedia is not here to sell books; we are here to inform. Multiple images clearly break WP:FAIRUSE and consensus stands that the Japanese image should not be replaced, so this debate is pretty much moot. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And to add another nail to the coffin, there is no English DVD cover. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

@NocturneNoir Sorry. I have my flaws, one is that i can't stand WP:BIAS. --KrebMarkt 08:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

you guys seem pretty hard edge for something that can easily be done and no one would complain about it. i get one image is plenty but didnt haseo445 said that you can remove the first cover and replace it with english one???

anyways if both covers look completely different then yes, i believe it would be nice to change it. i dont tihnk it was mean to search for buying it, i think it was recognizing it somewhere else instead of here. also the anime and manga articles are basically short information expecting you to buy them to get full detail so why not? not my problem, i was just wondering if you guys could change it, nothing bad about it. Japanese DVD case on English article sounds like a broken to me.Linder1990 (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It can't be done at this time, per the comments above. But even when it could be done, it won't be as there is no benefit content wise. Nothing is broken by using a cover from the original language. And insisting on using English covers for non-English series, books, comics, and movies is a manifestation of systemic bias --Farix (Talk) 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

well i know the movie and the book will come out in English and the comic is already out in English. Still i know its in japanese, but i dont know japanese and sometimes english covers differ from japanese. so when the time comes at least consider it.Linder1990 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether the dvd cover picture uses Japanese or English. USA may be english-speaking, and Wikipedia may be predominantly English, but still many people can recognize the Japanese Gundam 00 and say 'oh this is gundam 00'. so it really not sensible to change something when it's obviously working. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. by the way, i'm Singaporean. I don't know Japanese, but I can still recognize the Japanese logo anyway.lpjz290 —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

I agree with not changing it. System bias will really occur. It might be the title picture today, but tomorrow it will be all the contents, names, and such. Ask yourselves a question. Are we doing a wiki about Gundam 00 or just the English version of Gundam 00?

Episode 13.5

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)

Maybe a recap episode ? --KrebMarkt 08:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode 13.5 is more like an interview episode. In this episode, the seiyus are interviewed and asked questions about the show itself or their experiences while doing the show. --lpjz290 —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

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)