From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


its in paragraph 7---- i would credit them and post it here, but i dont know the law or whatnot and its not worth me getting into legal problems so follow link for an offical chronology

Gundam Word Meaning Variation[edit]

Generation Unsubdued Nuclear Drive Assult Module Is 'GUNDAM' comes from this weird line of words? Flora 02:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the terms of the series "Gundam SEED", GUNDAM stands for "GeneralUnilateral Neuro-LinkDispersive Autonamic Maneuvere"

If that is true, it contradicts what is in the article. Can we fix this? DJ Clayworth 16:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

No, the SEED definitions are unique to SEED. : Operation X 06:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the acronym spelled out previously not only doesn't apply outside of the SEED universe, but the acronym changes later on in the series. I don't remember the specifics, but the N is replaced by Nuclear, for instance. Xenon Zaleo 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In Gundam Seed Ep 26, the narrator explains the abbreviation and that the producer called them just 'G' but then continues, that the 'young pilots' took the 'G' and made it 'Gundam'. It really sounds like the word was kind of invented by the pilots, who didn't care about abbreviations. What really was said, needs to be checked by someone with Japanese knowledge of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we make it normal procedure to include the word Gundam in the title of any article that relates to this series. So rather than Mobile Suit Variations it would be Gundam Mobile Suit Variations. I think this would be less confusing for people searching on the words mobile or suit. DJ Clayworth 16:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Though your suggestion does have merrit, such a title would indicate that the article was about vairations of the Gundam design, which are so varied that it could be its own section anyway. There are plenty of other mobile suit lines with variants, but such an article could begin with a quick paragraph explaining the premise behind it all, to remind the reader what series its from and all...

With that name, it would be more likely article about MSV in general. L-Zwei 16:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Gundam Wing Gundams were called Gundams because they were made from Gundanium alloy[1] Hackwrench 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Virgo, Scorpio, Mercurius and Vayeate are all use Gundanium armor but aren't Gundam.L-Zwei 02:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
While that is true, Zechs does explicitly indicate (episode 1) that the suit's Gundanium composite construction was the sincher, proving that it was a Gundam. Curiously enough, the 'Luna Titanium' that the orrigional gundam was constructed from was later named 'Gundarium' in tribute to the suit, quite the opposite of what you see in Wing, eh?
That's because during event of early episode, they're only mobile suits that construct from Gundanium. Well, I think I get your point. The first five AC Gundam got the name Gundam from Gundanium alloy, but the meanning was lost once Mercurius and Vayeate appear. L-Zwei 12:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
See, there are a lot of things you could call a Gundam. Why isn't Turn-X a Gundam? Why isn't the Hyaku Shiki a Gundam? Aren't Rick Dias technically "Gundams"? The answer is, A Gundam is whatever Bandai decides one is. Adding the title Gundam to a suit automatically makes it sell more models than it's non-Gundamified counterparts. It's really a moot point to argue. You have to compare them all as mobile suits and jsut understand that some MS are better than others.

Actually, I think the name "Gundam" is derived from the supposed type of metal used to construct Gundams's called "gundanium." Oyo321 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That is dependant on the Series of Gundam. For Instance, G Gundam the term Gundam is derived from the Construction Material known as Gundarium, Gundam Wing is Gundanium. Each series it has it's own meaning (minus the Orignal Gundam series, Z, ZZ, 8th MST, 0080, 0083 and other Series in the UC Timeline which are all were based on the original gundam in Mobile Suit Gundam EtanaruKage63 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) EtanaruKage63

All the Gundams based on the original series in the UC series are actually using the metal Gundarium, it was called Lunar Titanium in the original series, and retconned to be Gundarium alpha, in Zeta, Anaheim Electronics used the Char Aznable's Axis technology named as Gundarium gamma to develop their own Anaheim Gundam series, the first one being Gundam gamma, which is Rick Dias. MythSearchertalk 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, all humanoid-form robots in the Gundam meta-series are called "Mobile Suits". However, the name "Gundam" differs from one timeline into the other. In the start of the Universal Century (UC) timeline (Mobile Suit Gundam, year UC 0079), the name "Gundam" exists only as the name of one of the 3 mobile suits made under Project-V (the other 2 are the Guncannon and the Guntank). In October of UC 0081, the Gundam Development Project was formed by Anaheim Electronics (commissioned by the Earth Federation) to create a series of experimental mobile suits based on the original Gundam (GP00 Blossom, GP01 Zephyrantes, GP01Fb Zephyrantes Full-Vernian, GP02A Physalis, GP03S Stamen, GP03D Dendrobium, GP04G Gerbera). To cut the long story short, the name "Gundam" in this timeline are mobile suits based on the original RX-78-2 Gundam piloted by the civilian (progressed into a official in the later series) Amuro Ray. In the After Colony timeline (Gundam Wing, Endless Waltz, G-Unit), the name "Gundam" is applied to the mobile suits constructed with a special, indestructible alloy called "Gundanum Alloy" and applied with the XXXG-00W0 Wing Gundam Zero (note the tv-series version, not the OVA version; all Gundam units in Endless Waltz are retrograde versions of the originals) and its decendants. In the Future Century timeline (G Gundam), the name "Gundam" denotes the mobile fighters created specifically for use in the Gundam Fight tournament, which are all made of Gundarium Alloy and regulated by the Gundam Fight International Committee. In the After Colony timeline (Gundam-X), the name "Gundam" are applied to mobile suits (and their descendants in AW 0015, with some exceptions) created in AW 0001 to prevent/stop the space colony drop to Earth. In Gundam SEED/Destiny, the name "Gundam" is actually an acronym (note: see ). E Wing 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then that wouldn't make sense. The word "Gundam" is used in almost every title of the Gundam series, along with MS. Oyo321 23:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The word GUNDAM has no abbrivation meaning until the era of "GUNDAM SEED" and "GUNDAM SEED Destiny". When the producer deceides to revamp the GUNDAM series so that it acceptable to a new generation of viewers. Also the only models of mobile suits that uses Nuclear Drive were the Zaku I and IIs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. Learn how to spell fictional
  2. Learn the difference of fictional and friction
  3. There is no such thing as gundama
  4. Universal Century only have fictional alloy called Gundarium with alpha, beta and gamma variants.
  5. If you don't know about something, and was reverted, probably you are wrong.
  6. The Acronym appeared way before SEED and SEED-D, the acronym for UC series first appeared in GUNDAM WARS I PROJECT Ζ, and the same book series II and III, and also as box art of the original 1/144 S Gundam series.
  7. All Universal Century Mobile Suits use Nuclear fusion drives, which is sourced in many setting books and even PG and MG model manuals. You showed your limited knowledge by saying things you do not know and your very bias towards SEED series.
—Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
To add on, Gundam Seed was only created in 2002. There's been acrynyms of Gundam way before that. I even have an official source/artbook I bought in 1999 that has a variant of the acronym inside, so acronyms were not "just created" for the SEED series. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Lagrange points and Gundam[edit]

Quote: The technology, at least that of the Universal Century, is practical and derived from true science, including Lagrange points in space, the O'Neill cylinder as a living environment, and energy production from helium-3 (Minovsky Physics).

Since L-points are mentioned in the article and "Lagrangian point" links to this article, the relation of the L-points and Gundam should be explained in the Gundam article. Besides, the above quote reads as if L-points were technological products, when they actually are a physical phenomenon. Since I'm unfamiliar with Gundam universe, all I can do is to make a comment. --The Merciful 13:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems to be some clumsy wording, the space colony clusters of the Gundam universe (refered to as 'Sides' in UC terminology) are nestled in clusters situated in those 5 stable points in orbit.

Merge Gundam model[edit]

Could the Gundam model article be merged here? Kjkolb 09:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, the gunpla page should be wrapped up and sliped into the merchandise section.-- 08:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Intro edit[edit]

Gundam is one of the most successful meta-series of Sci Fi anime which started with Mobile Suit Gundam by the famous director Yoshiyuki Tomino in 1979. With some variations amongst different series, Gundam is generally set in the near future in which humans fight terrible wars with giant robots. While originally aimed at the young boys demography, Gundam had acquired a large following in teens (both genders) and young adults in many parts of the world. The success of Gundam-related merchandise in the Far East rivals that of Star Wars in North America and Western Europe.

Hello! What do you think about the above intro? - DrCore 2005.09.02

Minor nitpick: Are the Hummingbird series (and by extension the Zetaplus series) considered "Gundams"? How about Re-GZ? If not, perhaps the exception relating to the Hummingbird should be removed from the "defining characteristics" section. -- 06:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the MSZ-006C1[Bst] Zetaplus C1 "Hummingbird" is actually a variation of the Zetaplus C1, one of the mobile suits of the Zetaplus series. Since the Zetaplus series are all variations and mass-produced versions of the MSN-006 Zeta Gundam, then I think that all Zetaplus mobile suits can't be called as a "Gundam" (note that the mass-produced RX-79[G] Gundam Ground Type came directly from spare part rejects of the RX-78-2 Gundam, so that means the RX-79[G] may not be considered as a "true" mass-production model. As for the Re-GZ (who's name stands for Refined Gundam Zeta), thats what I don't know. E Wing 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Distinctive Characteristics semplified[edit]

Since this is a general introduction to the Gundam concept, referring to specific less-important exceptions to the usual Gundam characteristics seemed excessive.

Also having an entire section devoted to Gundams different from the norm was wery out-of-place, as every mecha series has always less important models that are different than the namesake. There is really no point in stating this on this page.

If you need this information retained, put it on the specific model's pages.

This page is not a place where state which models are like the "real" gundams and which are not.--IgorTrieste 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


I think the focus of the Gundam entry is really poor. It reads like a fanboy's catalog of trivia, especially the crazy acronyms Bandai made up to explain what "Gundam" means. How about:

Gundam is a franchise owned by Bandai for a series of robot toys and animated shows produced to sell the toys. It was a modestly successful cartoon during its initial run, and the original toys were designed by the now extinct Clover company as typical robot toys for young children. Bandai figured out they could sell a lot of "realistic" science fiction model kits to slightly older children featuring the Gundam robot and countless sequels have followed.

The Gundam robot has a trademark look of a samurai-like head with two antenna on the forehead in a V-shape, a visored helmet, lightup eyes, and a covered "mouth." The Gundam robot usually carries a shield, rifle, and lightsaber-like "beam sword." The Gundams are usually depicted in the animated shows as thoughtless war machines and the story is told from the point of view of the pilot.

Isn't this better than speculating what G.U.N.D.A.M. stands for? If you are at that point you really don't need an encyclopedia entry to help you... 04:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)nobody

  • While I don't like how G.U.N.D.A.M. acronyms was mention in introduction, since it never exist until SEED was released (and only apply to CE timeline, not Gundam in general.). Your version is even worse and look like something belong to Uncyclopedia. L-Zwei 08:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call my version better written, but I think it comes closer to describing what Gundam is to the greater world than the current entry. The reason Gundam keeps getting refreshed is it sells a lot of merchandise. Just like Coke cans are red and Corvettes are fiberglass, Gundams carry rifles, swords, and shields, and have that distinct head. BTW I did read the Uncyclopedia entry for Gundam and it is rather close to the above! 04:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)nobody
      • Not really, while general Gundam show feature such distinct feature. There are some product that standout from other (Turn A Gundam for example), some product like Rise from Ashes game not include Gundam at all. And there are some novel that doesn't has official merchandise release. I don't denie that Gundam is to sells a lot of merchandise, but that's just one aspect (though it seem to be more and more important, it still just one aspect). Said Gundam keeps getting refreshed is solely for sells merchandise is like say The reason Star Wars get refreshed is it sells a lot of merchandise. It's completely ignore other aspect of franchise.L-Zwei 12:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Turn A didn't exactly break the design rules for the Gundam. They did move the v-antennae, but just to the nose and spent the whole show reminding the viewer where they moved it by dubbing it "The Moustache." Rise from the Ashes featured the GM mobile suit, which is just an "non-flashy" design of the Gundam (GM ~= GundaM, like the creators saying, "This robot is nearly a Gundam."). I think the question "What is a Gundam?" should be answered in an encyclopedia entry, and the current entry doesn't do that. How about, the design for the Gundam robot is usually inspired by the original Gundam, which featured a samurai-like head, the v-antennae, covered mouth, etc. I guess you would white as the base color, and a cockpit in the chest/heart area. Also, of course, a humanoid shape. I'm not saying every Gundam has every design queue, but practically none of the Gundams don't have most of them. I think getting this across is more important than mentioning random plot devices like "Mirkovsky Particles." Also, you can add the robot is usually designed in a way so that it can be built as an actual robot (in the anime as a full size-robot, in the real world as a plastic model) in such a way that high articulation can be realized and none of the proportions of the design are changed from the cartoon to the actual robot. (Again, SD Gundam breaks this rule, but they named the show to remind you what to "correct" to make it fit with the Gundam design.) I think the high articulation and proportionality are key to the "Real Robot" genre. 19:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)nobody
          • The term Gundam mean both the franchise and main mecha of show. The entry already answer the question "What is Gundam" for both. Introduction part is answer for "What is Gundam" as franchise and the Distinctive characteristics part answer the question "What is Gundam" as the name of mecha. Well, the introduction part might be clearer if we move G.U.N.D.A.M acronym phrase somewhere else.L-Zwei 05:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree that the introductory paragraph for Gundam should be spruced up a bit to give it a more 'official' or 'finalized' feel to it. Because at the moment, it seems as though it's part of an article with the beginning cut out. However, I also feel that the initial suggestion is overly cynical, and deliberatly missleading. It seems to me that the writer in question is simultaneously aware of the significant volume of material behind the series, but is unwilling to familiarize themself with it rather than dismiss critical setting elements as 'plot devices.' The introduction should be elegant and simple. Introducing Gundam and the timeframe in which it first appeared. Briefly describe the financial failure and subsequent revival of the series through reruns, and go on to reveal that it is now a franchise that covers a wide gambit of animated, drawn, digital, and literary work, with degrees of artistic and marketable quality that vary rapidly between them... I'll see what I can do... -- 08:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I question whether Gundam is really one of the earliest of the Mecha genre. I remember Gigantor the space-age robot from the late 60s, see [2].

  • It absoultely is not only one of the earliest, it was THE earliest. Gigantor was not a mech drama, it was a "Giant Robot" show. Big difference. User:Snarfies
    • This overseas concept that "giant robot" and "mech/mecha" are mutually exclusive categories does not exist in Japanese. In Japanese, Mobile Suit Gundam is considered just as much a "giant robot" as Tetsujin 28-gou (Iron Man No. 28/Gigantor). Keep in mind that the RX-78-2 Gundam is the same 18-meter height as Mazinger Z (Tranzor Z). Also, in Japanese, both Tetsujin 28-gou and Gundam are considered mecha, as are all mechanical objects, robotic or otherwise. User:Egan Loo
  • The terms the Japanese themselves use for the distinction between the Tetsujin 28-gou's generation and Gundam's generation are "Super Robot" and "Real Robot." Still, some Japanese fans consider Mobile Suit Gundam to be not exclusively a "real robot" series, but a bridge between the two subgenres. (Gundam has the pioneering "realistic" depiction of war, but it still has color schemes, inventor's son/pilot, and other "super robot" tropes foisted upon the creators by the sponsors.) Also, the Super Robot game franchise have further blurred the Super Robot subgenre boundaries. Still Super Robot, Real Robot, and Hero Robot are useful categorizations used by Japanese fans. User:Egan Loo

-While it is true that in Japan the word "mecha" embodies all robot genres and the classification prefixes they use to distinguish are "real" and "super", this is the en.wikipida not the jp.wikipidia. People are coming to this page to clarify the specific uses and discriminations and uses of these classifications in English language and culture and as such the page needs to reflect those uses; in this case the fact that "mecha" are characterizd as a different subgenre from "super robot" in Western cultre. If you wish to make a case that this Western variation of subgenre clssification is misleading and erroneous then by all means please do so, but this is not the palce for that argument. This is a catalog, not a forum.

-Robert from Gundam Universe
    • The catch is that there is no consistent English usage of the word "mecha." As clearly shown in the discussion above, English speakers have different opinions on what "mecha" mean. Some English speakers say that "mecha" mean all robots. Others say that "mecha" mean only "realistic" robots. Still others say that "mecha" means only piloted robots or only humanoid robots, while those that don't say that unfairly rules out Giant Robo and the mobile armor and mobile dolls of the Gundam franchise. Finally, some use the original Japanese definition and say "mecha" mean all mechanical objects--after all, there are English speakers who validly discuss the mecha in Cowboy Bebop even though there are virtually no robots in it. There are English speakers who validly discuss the mecha of the Gundam franchise and include the non-humanoid mobile armor in the discussion.
    • Using specific terms in the article (with an explanatory text to clarify the meaning) is perfectly valid because of all these different uses of "mecha" by English speakers. In fact, because of all the confusion, the article should do this. --Egan Loo 15:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • -Good Point. As this is an issue for discussion in a vibrant subculture and therefore the boundaries of definition are relatively fluid and malliable. While I have a very clear set of values for each definition which I use when discussing with other members of the "sect" that I expect even if they do not agree with for them to understand, as consistent as the values are in their usage within the collectiove there is no awarding body of Certified Otakification. There is a lot of room for discussion; especially when dealing with the SRW/SRT issue lots of the kids who are influenced by the growth of the game translation scene use "real" and "super".
    • - That being said, I still advocate the super/mecha distinction on grounds of aesthtic consistency as Gundam(and almost Zambot-3) was the progenitor of design style that made giant robots look like factory produced vehicles ala cars, tanks and planes- and it was this design philosophy that permeates a lot of the technolust of "mecha" as I use the term which in turn was responsible for the development of Gunpla/(model building) that is such a source of focus and discovery for the mecha/anime fanbase. And in turn not only do "Super" robots very often have much more bombastic and plastic appearance but they display a lot of the same characteristics which we associate with super heros in this country. The very mechanisation- the monomaniacal high-functionaoning autism of robot development and design in things like 08MST or even Robotech for that matter- is not present. -Rob from GU-

At about the same time there was another cartoon screened in Australia about someone called Hercules who saved the day each episode by building a robot called the Giant Muscle (to the tune of the Can-can Polka, the chorus of which went "hurry hurry Hercules"). Both were this genre. Whether the second came from Japan I don't know for sure, but it seems to me their contribution should be recognised. Andrewa 15:41, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Hercules post above, the song went, "Hurry, hurry Hercules. Time to launch your guided Muscle Missile". It was screened in the US as well.

Would someone please unite all of the ships in the various gundam series' onto one page. Trying to find all of the ship classes and names takes forever, and it seems unfare that every other topic has a "mainpage" per se.

I have removed the link to Gundam Gates, as it's fairly obvious it was added as an advertisement. Jtrainor 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just uh, guys... what that first guy said up there. It all sounds like it's written by fanboys. And I guess it was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
Actually, the acronym existed well before SEED came out. The UC G.U.N.D.A.M. acronym was backronymed in Gundam Sentinel(1988), General purpose Utility Non-Discontinuity Augmentation Maneuvering weapon system(全領域汎用連続増強機動兵器). You can find it in the Japanese wiki and Chinese wiki (and I have checked sources of it) but both of them are placed in Gundam type(MS) MythSearchertalk 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Official name of Char Aznable's actual clone[edit]

His name (アフランシ・シャア) should be "Afranshia Char", or "Afransia Char"?? -- Red Kid 9:24 PM May 29, 2006 (UTC)

Afranshia, probably. Oyo321 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


This is more of a question to adults, scientists or mathematicians... so I am prefering more of a professional answer to this question, so I do not want any opinions on this.

Does anybody know if the construction of a gundam, and the functioning of it are possible without defying any of those common Newton's, Einstein's "Laws?" Oyo321 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you further specify the question? Lambda driver (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Gundam Evolution[edit]

Since there seems to be something of a struggle here, probably wise to start a discussion. Basically, I'm for including a link to the Gundam Evolution message board because it's staffed by the majority of the former staff of Bandai's own GOUF message board and hosts various in depth discussion with notable members like Mark Simmons. MAHQ just seems to get noted on these articles by default. It has a massive mecha database but as several people have noted it's not flawless. I don't see why it's so wrong to have a link to both, especially since GE actually has had a connection with Bandai in the past whilst MAHQ's connection seems to have stopped at news from Jerry Chu. GE also presents very in depth discussion which provides elaboration on various ignored Gundam mysteries as well as common held misconceptions.--HellCat86 13:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I just think it's against Wikipedia:External links guideline. But since you're so insist... L-Zwei 14:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, I just feel for the stated reasons it's worth linking too. The site in a previous form had partly Bandai's blessing and alot of useful information comes up in the discussions including topics most other Gundam boards don't touch.--HellCat86 15:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Still, it's forum. I'm no loger against add it in external link section, but instead of trying to dodge it around, lets bravely accept that "It's forum and against WP:EL, but I think it worth to mention!!". By the way, you said previous form? So what about current form? L-Zwei 16:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation for Gundam?[edit]

Is the correct pronunciation for Gundam, Gun-Dam or Gun-Dum? I believe it's Gun-Dum. I think the correct pronunciation should be added to the article.
For example: Gundam (ガンダム, Gandamu; pronounced _______) is one of the longest running series of anime featuring mecha. Silver Edge 04:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation of a foreign or artificial word is usually determined from the pronounciation of the word by the main characters.
The original posters question for pronunciation indicates that English fans (correctly) pronounce 'Gundam' differently from 'Gun-Dum'. But in fact, the word, as spoken by Japanese voice actors, would be clearly pronounced 'gundum'. The real question seems to be, why is it spelled differently, than spoken. And although we have to take into account that sometimes, or rather often, Japanese Manga writers and Japanese script translators do not maintain the necessary level of basic English to create proper translation, still, since they made it Gun-Dam, there is some probability they had something in mind.
My best guess is that the actual writing is purpose, and (as a hidden joke) resembles a dutch (?) word, which is globally known by fans of martial arts: Van Damme. It's nowhere documented, but would fit perfectly into the Japanese way of re-using Western words rather deliberately.

Supposed linkspam[edit]

Ok, we really need to iron this out. ESPECIALLY since certain editors are showing bias towards MAHQ. Links as of current edit and my opinion on their use:

  • Official US and Japanese sites- goes without saying these should be linked to.
  • MAHQ- Certainly a useful site but it's not official. The mecha section has been cited for making assumptions and giving out incorrect info.
  • Gunota Headlines- Reliable and up to date source for Gundam news, especially for those of us who can't read Japanese.
  • Gundam Evolution- I've already argued for this one and stand by my view. This board was originally a fan board, was adopted as the model (along with it's staff) for Bandai's own official Gundam forum and now that has ended has resumed being a fan maintained resource. Add in the place holds alot of discussion beyond the done-a-thousand-times "What's your favourite Gundam?" nonsese and I think it more than deserves to be recognised here.--HellCat86 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I think you're one who bias against MAHQ. But lets discuss it using WP:EL guideline instead of our opinion, alright?

  • About MAHQ - while contain some mistake, it's not bad enough to fall into 2nd type of Links normally to be avoided (but if you think it is,lets change topic to discuss about that) and most of MS's articles cited it as source.
  • Gunota Headlines and Gundam Evolution - are blog and forum so they're 9th type of Links normally to be avoided. However, handful of article cited Gunota Headlines as source so I think it's worth keeping. I haven't seen Gundam Evolution got cited yet, but if it's truely worth to mention here, you shouldn't have problem to point me out (or add some).L-Zwei 07:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not showing any bias to MAHQ. If I were, I would have deleted it. I'm all for it being linked, my argument is against those who go out of there way to protect said links but snipe other noteable fan maintained resources. For Gundam Evolution- as I already pointed out, the place was initially a fan run forum (under the name Gundam Watch) before becoming the basis for Bandai's own Gundam Official User Forum. When Bandai chose to abandon that project, GE carried on as back to a fan resource. If something works well enough that the official owners adopt it, I think that already makes it worthy of mention. The topics discussed there are also fairly noteworthy. Most Gundam forums read like "In episode so and so, why did what's his name do such and such?" or in the worst cases are full of useless fluff like "Wuts yor fave GUndaM?". I'm not trying to badmouth other fan forums (certainly there are good ones out there) but I believe for the purpose of this article GE deserves to be highlighted in External Links--HellCat86 16:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Not that I plan to remove it, but I won't oppose whoever remove it either. It just that despite being good forum, it's still a forum and forum is against WP:EL(to somebody, good and bad is just opinion). As I said previously, it would be much more comfortable if you just cited it as source in handful of articles. Tell you the truth, there are ton of false info in Gundam articles here, go fix some of them and cite GE (put link to the thread in talk page of article is best method, I think) and that would prove its worthness. Not just about forum, but whatever good thing is worthless if you can't utilize it.L-Zwei 17:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "Gundam Evolution Message Board", I don't think it qualifies as a quality external link. First, Forums are usually not accepted per our external link guidelines. And second, the fact that some moderators that were in the official forum now are there does not constitute a strong notability to reinsert it. However, I will leave the editors of this page to review the situation. I know at least one wants the link inserted, so I will like to listen to other opinions. -- ReyBrujo 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've already given my view. Gundam Evolution certainly retains a closer link to being 'official' then MAHQ does, and I see no great rush to remove that page. I've even added a note in the article which I believe justifies the link.--HellCat86 18:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The forum alone has 986 members, three times the amount of members GEMB has. Also, it seems a suitable external link because I believe it is not only a forum (the external link guidelines oppose against forums-only, not against fan sites with content, although only one should be added). If it settles for you, I suggest removing all the fan external links, I have no problem with that. -- ReyBrujo 19:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Is everyone just ignoring the fact that Gundam Evolution was what Bandai's own attempt at such a forum was based on and staffed by? The amount of members MAHQ's forum has in contrast is irrelevant.--HellCat86 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That has no relevance for the external link. We classify them according to usefulness and notability. The only notability claim is that some people who used to be in an official forum are now there. Those few people aren't notable enough to give the forum notability enough for inclusion. -- ReyBrujo 19:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
'Some people'? The only ones who bowed out are the 2 original owners and one mod for career reasons. Other than that it's the same place just under a different name. The same place using the exact same staff that GOUF did. Having once been part of that staff, I should know. It IS noteable and nothing you say can change that.--HellCat86 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's put it this way: why the original forum was notable? Because of the people in the forum, or because it was an official forum backed up by Bandai? -- ReyBrujo 20:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The forum was originally a fan maintained one, called Gundam Watch. When Bandai decided to try their own official fan forum, they came to the administration of GW and said "We like your style. May we use your rules, staff, etc in creating our own official forum for fan discussion?". It was agreed on and GOUF was created. When Bandai elected not to continue with GOUF, the staff brought back the independent GW. When the current GW owners chose to bow out, the remaining staff chose to keep it going under the name of Gundam Evolution. Other than the name change, it's essentially identical. The forum itself holds a range of discussion with various individuals (I hate to throw his name around, but Mark Simmons is a regular there) on many in depth Gundam topics that most other forums don't cover. Personally, if you don't consider the fact that Bandai themself consulted and 'hired' this place to maintain the official US Gundam forum as noteable, I REALLY have to wonder why.--HellCat86 20:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am only checking whether the external link is notable enough to be included or not. I know Gundam as I know many other anime series, but I don't care about fan groups, so I am pretty neutral. As I stated, if the solution is to remove every fan link, I would have no problem with that. You have made your position clear. Hopefully others will also give their opinions about this matter. -- ReyBrujo 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is "Gundam Evolution" still listed? It's clear that the only person who keeps adding that back in is HellCat86, who appears to be the poster boy for that forum anyway. But I digress; it's not an appropriate link. Sure, I've read the tired "oh well it had ties to GOUF" but frankly that's hardly a reason. Clearly by promoting this forum over the other myriads of Gundam forum shows favoritism, and besides, it's a FORUM. There is a reason something like MAHQ is listed, because it actually has information and factual evidence. This "Gundam Evolution" is just another Gundam Forum, no matter what this HellCat86 person tries to market it as.-- HMRising 18:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
MAHQ is still just a fansite, so technically is still held by the same logic. Your argument here is "I think THIS fansite is more important then THAT one, therefore the one I hold preference too stays". I'm sorry, but if you don't consider a license holder specifically 'hiring' fans to handle an official project to be notable then I wonder why. It's the most current version of said project and even though it has returned to being fan operated that doesn't change it's history.--HellCat86 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No, my argument is not that. And unfortunately for you, you are the one who is doing that; you even admitted earlier to advocating about removing MAHQ, but zealously supported "Gundam Evolution". I am not arguing in favor of MAHQ, I was merely presenting a logical comparison between the two links. Also, I do find it rather funny that you quoted "'hiring'"; which acknowledges that such the occupation was not, in actuality, formal nor official. And besides, it was an Internet forum; hardly a lucrative position. Honestly, you need to get off your high horse about it. Likewise, your longwinded tirade of it's "history" is not topical nor relevant; no one is denying it (nor supporting it besides yourself), but what of its current dealings? It's simply against WP:EL, but you continue to post it anyway. Really, all you're doing is adding the link for free advertising of your "once-official" forum. Truly quite pathetic that you're getting away with it.--HMRising 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have no major fault with MAHQ. I'm simply annoyed at those who think it's the only Gundam fansite articles should link to. And ease off on the mudslinging. For your information, I used 'hiring' as the forum staff were not on Bandai's payroll. The positions however and the forum itself were quite official.--HellCat86 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gundam Unicorn[edit]

It'be great if the Gundam Unicorn article could be added into all the links and whatnot, just so it's acknoledged as being in production.

Where you heard it's in production? So far Gunota Headlines has no such info and there was a thread back at MAHQ's message board [3] which turn out that it's still just a novel. No information if it will get animate or not. L-Zwei 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what I mean. We do novels on Wiki as well. SOrry for the misunderstanding, perhaps the word "publishing" would have been better.--Avitar Diggs 10:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


The "0079" nickname, is not only used by english-speaking fans, but by every fans. Japanese too. I'm going to revert again.Lord Air 08:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In Japan, Gundam 0079 is a set of diverse One-Year-War manga and games that didn't come out until 13 years after the first Gundam series came out. Japanese fans don't refer to the first Gundam series as Gundam 0079 because of the confusion that would cause with those projects. In Japan, both creators and fans have nicknamed the first Gundam series "First Gundam," not "Gundam 0079." Try to find a Japanese reference to the first Gundam series as "Gundam 0079," and you will find that they actually refer to those later projects. Egan Loo 13:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact would still remain that it is not used by English speaking fans only. The Chinese Gundam community also uses 0079 as first Gundam quite often, although senior ones keep poping up saying it is not the correct usage, it never really stopped being refered as 0079. MythSearchertalk 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. It should be reworded to "overseas fans" or "foreign fans" then. I'll go ahead and do that. Egan Loo 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I just wanted to pull everyone's attention to the point that there is no timelines listed on the page as what YEAR each Gundam series was released. because I can see amuro taking out few zeon mobiles with a "HUGE light saber"??? so 1979 is also the year the STAR WARS came out and i am thinking which one took inspiratin from whom. similarly IRONMAN from Marvel comes later than IRONMAN 028 manga. so no one noticed that i guess. any ways , timelines please. thanks Danraz 13:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, Star Wars was released in 1977. Tomino has acknowldged Star Wars as an influence on Gundam but such notes should be put in this and any other article in a respectable manner, not "ZOMG it rips off Star Wars!!"--HellCat86 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that there should be an article that displays full graphical time line(s) of the Gundam series and a link to it in the Main article. And to that it should be clear so a novice to Gundam can follow with out getting confused about which century or series they are in.

These time lines can be can both for the Gundam universe and a reality base time line for when all parts of the series was released and where.--AKIRA70 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New Gundam Musou import footage[edit]

It's another Gundam game! I swear they are pumping these out every month in Japan. Gamevideos snatched some cool import gameplay, it kinda looks like a Dynasty Warriors with robots.


  • Uh, it doesn't look like a Dynasty Warriors game, in fact it it one, but a Gundam version of it. Same developer, logo (almost the same).

Gundamology link[edit]

  • I'm not big on link spam but come on. It's a Gundam Wiki which we're trying to build support for, especially in the light of Wiki's recent attitude. If it had 0 articles I'd understand but it has a steady number and growing. Part of linking it here was in the hopes of getting it further built up. It's not harming anyone by being linked--HellCat86 10:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sentient" Gundams[edit]

Although no Gundam has ever been definitively stated as being sentient, there has been debate by fans over events in Gundam Wing which depict at least three Gundams acting on their own or in some way interacting with the pilot in a manner other than normal. The primary two to be concerned with are Wing Zero and Epyon. Heero speaks to Zero as if holding a conversation with it in episode 44 of the series. He also speaks to Epyon during episode 37, Zero vs. Epyon, while Zechs talks to Zero which appears to answer questions aimed at the machines operating system, such as the fate of the Sanc Kingdom. When Zechs demands to know what the point of the battle he is fighting with Zero is, Zero appears to 'respond' (we are told it's response through dialogue from Zechs) that the point is to kill everyone who's come to kill Zechs. This battle however, pushed both pilots to the point of collapse. During this conflict, Heero tells Zechs to ask Zero if he (Heero) is an enemy, indicating that Zero itself somehow has the capability to communicate with humans, as does Epyon.

At the end of the episode, Heero and Zechs exchange Gundams, but continue to act in a manner as if the two machines are somehow alive or intelligent on their own. In episode, number 49 which was entitled The Final Victor, Heero calls upon Zero for help, with the excat phrase "Zero, please guide me through this." And the system responds to the plea. Furthermore, Heero continues this course of reference to Zero during Endless waltz when talking to Wu Fei saying "Zero will not tell me anything". He also speaks directly to Zero directly before he takes the suit to the scene of the headquarters of the Barton Foundation, where Zero essentially disintegrates.

Briefly in the first part of the Gundam Wing series, Quatre, Wu Fei, and Duo prepare to make their escape back into outer space, and Quatre prepares to sacrifce his own life by activating the self-destruct device in episode 17. During this battle, Quatre speaks directly to Sandrock, urging it back to it's feet after it is struck by a powerful rocket from an opposing mobile suit. After the activation of Sandrock's self-destruct mechanism, the machine opens it's entry hatch of it's own accord to allow Quatre time to escape. It also moves on it's own to confront the oncoming mobile suits attempting to stop their escape.

Fans have picked up on this and in some fanfiction, the Gundams have been depicted as not only sentient, but capable of speech.

In short, the qualifying statement about the fan debate over whether or not certain Gundams, specifically Zero and Epyon, is a legitimate addition to the current statement that the machines themselves are not usually sentient. Please refrain from removing this statement in the future.

Warwolf1 09:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, starting from the very first Gundam, RX-78-2, all Gundams have the ability to be programed and run on its own with preset actions. This happened in MSG's famous last shooting scene, where both Gundam and Zeong head was set to shoot at each other and result in a stalemate without hurting both pilots. Sandrock example is one of the obvious example of this, and Zero system simply returns possible outcome of any inquiry actions, and thus Heero got his answer. The only sentient Gundam by far is probably all from the UC timeline, the first one being S Gundam with ALICE onboard in Gundam Sentinel. second is EXAM system installed BD-1, BD-2 and BD-3, in which a Newtype soul was sealed inside the EXAM system and got emotion since it is essentially a human, the third store that got sentient Gundam is F90, where one of them is installed with a system called A.R. that basically acts as Amuro Ray and another called C.A. Char Aznable which showed a specific level of emotion when meeting the other as the two have fought in One Year War. The fourth is a suit in Crossbone Gundam, where multiple brains of Amuro Ray was cloned and the one that gives out brainwaves closes to Amuro was placed inside the suit. It thanked and saved Tobio in the story after it was destroyed after an unwilling battle. 1, 2 are canon and 3, 4 are not(yet published by official sources), while 1, 2 and 4 specified the suits to have their own will and can act on their own, not like the fan speculated Wing series suits. Which are from the romanatic views of fans who have never even thought of auto-piloting.
Fan cruff is not suitable in wikipedia, fan speculation and fanfiction have no place here at all. MythSearchertalk 10:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd add the Devil Gundam. We even see it use Ulube as an avatar to communicate its thoughts--HellCat86 10:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought it is his own will, and it is not specified that it has its own thought and will in the series, unlike the samples I have added that is very specific on the sheer will and mind on the machines instead of controlling the pilots that might have their own free will. MythSearchertalk 15:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove any entries of sentient MS from articles as OR, which it is. Nothing is ever said about it in the series or any other published material. Jtrainor 20:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be at least room for speculation as to whether or not that the Gundams or other Mobile Suits are indeed Sentient in ther series.--AKIRA70 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Primary rule, no speculation here. Unless you can find citable professional speculation. L-Zwei (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Stargazer, which is explicitly stated to have an AI(the start of Stargazer involves them teaching it preceeding the attack)

Gundam Century[edit]

Since even the Gundam Officials and director acknowledge Gundam Century, I think it is at least notable enough to be mentioned in the Gundam article since itself is a notability guide of Gundam. Since it was removed immediately after I added in the info, I guess I should try to discuss this before readding it in. Maybe it is just because of my poor English and need of refining of words. MythSearchertalk 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


To an outsider this article just doesn't seem to flow very well and makes next to no sense. I've even seen one of the shows and it makes no sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Another problem it seems to happen because of numerous people trying to correct each other with out discussing the changes first.--AKIRA70 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How can the Heavy Gundam be more significant in showing a non-human face than the mono-eye Gundam?[edit]

Please also stop adding too much detail into the article, the examples are meant to be simple and obvious, not extremely detail and hard to tell the difference. Sorry if it is not your favourite unit that got a place there, but removing the ones that you do not know and placing something that is not that much different from the others is not a good idea. If you insist to change and lengthen the page, it is just going to become a plain speculation section(which it already is) and WP:OR certifies certain deletion acts. MythSearchertalk 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Such subsitutions should be put up to debate in the discussion page. This should be a way for making the article a place of information and not a textual battlefield for the opinions or popularity towards the gundam types.--AKIRA70 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal of the removal of the Distintive Characteristic section examples[edit]

Since the anon user refused to communicate before adding more inappropriate OR and replacing obvious example with his own example, the next edit will be considered vandalism. Also, since the section is so controversial, I propose the removal of such section or at least remove the examples to stop suggesting anons from adding in their own OR in to the paragraph. MythSearchertalk 05:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
To that I think we should have a challenge section to this article, allowing users,non users and guest to be on the same footing in deciding which topic to be change and which (under a popular census)should be left alone. Settling matters this way will allow people from getting into factual/non factual disputes online: using the article's topics as their main weapons.--AKIRA70 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures Please!!![edit]

I contend there should be a Formal request to users and guest to specifically add as many pictures as possible to the descriptions of mobile suits. It simply makes no sense to have extensive list(s) and or articles on many different types of mobile suits and yet, to have no clue to as what they look like beyond the textual information already given. To do justice to both the Gundam franchise and it's fan base, and every other viewer of these articles, there should be a picture for a lest every major Mobile Suit in the Gundam Universe. This is for all intents and purposes, an Encyclopedia you know.--AKIRA70 (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the Gundam page, I came to the same conclusion; lots and lots of details. However, for someone who knows nothing about Gundam and comes to this page, they would probably like to “SEE” what a Gundam is. Also, for people who are visual, they to would appreciate seeing photos. I agree with AKIRA70 and personally think this page would do well to have a Gallery.
For this reason I saw fit to take a photo of an acrylic painting that I did for my son, upload it and gave everyone free use of the work.
A little history of the painting: My son who was six years old at the time of the painting and was fascinated with the Gundam franchise asked me to draw him a picture of his V2 Gundam white mobile suit. The drawing evolved into the acrylic painting.
MythSearcher saw fit to delete my photo [[4]] while claiming it was self promoting and that it adds nothing to the article.
  • My contribution is Self promoting? MythSearcher's talk page would be considered self promoting! This isn’t face book or MySpace. Who cares were MythSearcher was born, went to school or that he has a “Cleanliness Compulsion.”
  • My contribution adds nothing to the page? MythSearcher would do well to read what Wikipedia is about. Just because “HE” doesn’t agree with the contribution doesn’t mean he's right and has the final decision. So far, MythSearcher is out numbered 2:1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander271 (talkcontribs)
The designs of Gundams are copyrighted and you can't give everyone free use of your derivative work without permission from the original creator. If you have such permission, please provide it on Commons:File:File:V2_Gundam_Acrylic_Painting_by_SeanClevenger.jpg; otherwise it will be deleted as a copyright violation. --Kusunose 20:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
To add more, please see: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42#Question about images of scale models and also, pictures on articles are not for decorative purposes, they serve an illustrative purpose of the topic. The other 3 pictures are all included in the article as fair use, the V2 Gundam picture is, 1) not notable since it is not covered in any publiacations; 2) adds nothing to the article in illustrating anything; and 3) as per above, the strange Japanese laws are working in this situation. My user page is not the Gundam article, and the user page should illustrate what type of articles I would modify and a certain knowledge of my background so that people can understand what perspective I am taking culturally. It is perfectly fitting with the wikipedia guidelines of what a user page should contain, maybe the birth date is unnecessary, but a birth date does not make my page conflict of interest. WP:COI deals with self promotion and my user page promotes nothing. I do not create art works or write any books(or at least did not mention it in my user page.) You, on the other hand uploaded a self made picture placing it on the page with your own name. Since the COI is only a part of the problem, replacing the picture into the article is still out of the question even if you remove your name. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 02:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • At the risk of sounding as if I’m self promoting; if feel it must be stated. I gave 10 years of my life in the service of my country as a United States Marine in order to protect the rights and freedoms we American hold dear. I’m not about to allow someone, who in my opinion, has ideologies that are outright censorship.
  • As I said earlier, my son wanted me to draw him the picture. He wanted detail, lots of detail. He wanted it to look exactly like his V2 Gundam model, so that’s what I painted.
  • My contribution was in good faith and in response to AKIRA70’s official request to add photos. At the time of my contribution I felt that I had a unique ability to make a contribution here because I was the one who created the “Fan Art” in the likeness of Gundam as an acrylic painting and therefore I could freely give my painting up to this article but I was wrong as you will see.
  • I was about to request a sysop to come and put an end to this censorship and conduct complete audit on MythSearcher in order to find out if he has censored other good faith contributions. However, my upload clashed with Kusunose. Kusunose was the first one who actually made a valid point. I researched Kusunose’s assertion and confirmed that because I was so detailed in my work, I precluded myself from making the contribution. Therefore, MythSearcher gets his way by a legal technical error on my part.
  • Where I placed the photo occupied about 30% of a ‘’huge’’ empty white field. Where is it written that photos can’t be larger than “X.” If Deus257 thinks the thumbnail is too big, then say so; don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Resize it or ask someone to resize it if you don’t know how. Just because you “THINK” it was too big doesn’t gave you the right to just delete it; that my friend is censorship.
  • As for MythSearcher, he came off stating that it does not add anything to the article and self promotion; that my friend, if I’m not mistaken, is an opinion. By deleting my good faith contribution, solely based on your opinion, is censorship. MythSearcher was in fact committing the sin of censorship upon venue based on the contribution of others. And now, in this discussion, MythSearcher is trying to assert that 2) adds nothing to the article in illustrating anything. I’m sorry; did I accidentally upload a photo of Micky Mouse? Micky Mouse definitely has nothing to do with Gundam. I scratch my head and ponder how; a photo of an acrylic painting, of the V2 Gundam white mobile suit adds “NOTHING” to the article. Need I say more?
  • Well AKIRA70, it looks like we both FINALLY have an answer to why the Gundam page lacks visual aesthetics.
  • As for everyone else, I’m sorry to have wasted your time in this censorship matter. Oh ya, sorry for also not signing my earlier post with identical bullet points above. Xander271 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Xander271. Semper Fidelis.
There is no censorship but simple policy and guidelines. Read the non-free content discussion and understand what is prohibited by law has nothing to do with censorship. The company owns the copyright and no one is allowed to infringe it, unless you have a strong case of fair use, that is, you are using it to illustrate something important. However, if a non-free image has to be used, it would be perfectly fine to use the official image, and not yours. I fully understands that by the US laws, fan art is perfectly legal, but it is not the case in Japan, and the copyright owner of the said picture(Gundam is owned by Bandai, licensed under its branch Sotsu Agency) is of Japanese origin. I showed you the link to a very recent discussion about a similar matter, which people proved me wrong on the assumption of Japan having the same law as the US, where fan art would be legal to distribute, but it is not. You are doing something I proposed to do earlier(see WT:GUNDAM#Images that we can use discussion about pictures) thus I know exactly what your confusion is. I reverted your edits also in good faith, per WP:IUP, the picture has nothing to back up with fair use rationale since this article did not talk about the V2, or Gundam paintings as notable subjects with sources. Thus I have stated it adds nothing to the article. If you can find a source stating Gundam paintings are notable, you can add a short discription in the article and bring along a picture. However, even the Christie's auction ink and wash painting that worth US$600000 did not find a reasonable enough rationale to be included, so it is highly unlikely that a fan picture is. The 3 pictures now in the article shows the titular Gundam(The original, first Gundam), the Gundam used in the Fire department and the 1:1 building sized Gundam, all of them are rather notable to the topic and not fan art. Except for the titular Gundam(which is used to illustrate the franchise icon), the other two have coverage in the article, and not a random insertion. Also, you might be interested in WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOS to understand different people have different sized screens and resolutions, thus the white space you are seeing might not appear on other people's screen. In Wikipedia, we do not insert pictures to try to fill in empty space, since fixing one's screen might destory another. BTW, you are talking to someone(AKIRA70) who did not contribute to wikipedia for over a full year and the only edit made after the year empty period is a comment in his own talk page 12 days ago. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
First off, MythSearcher was not censoring the image. He was enforcing Wikipedia policies on non-free content. The image was purely decorative and did not illustrate anything in the article. The V2 Gundam is not even mentioned in the article, so there is nothing to illustrate. Wikipedia has very strict rules about the use of non-free content. These rules come directly from the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department and are non-negotiable.
Also, baseless accusations of censorship is an assumption of bad faith that will inevitably result in you losing your editing privileges if you continue to repeat them. Because you originally included your name with the image, it can be viewed as self-promotion. So MythSearcher was not too far off on that. Even you realized that when you attempted to restore the image a second time, but without your name attached. However, the remove of the image is not censorship in any way, shape, or form. Remember that when you hit the "save" button, you are already agreeing to have your contributions "edited mercilessly" including outright removal if the contribution is not appropriate. --Farix (Talk) 11:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your wrong Farix. MythSearcher was not enforcing Wikipedia policies on non-free content. The fact is, he didn’t mention anything about copyright laws until Kusunose brought it up. All of this could have been avoided if; 1.) someone would have addressed AKIRA70’s request for pictures, pointing out the difference in copyright laws and 2.)if MythSearcher would have been a better ambassador to the page. You claim “...I know exactly what your confusion is” on 06:58, 17 August 2009. Then why didn’t you just show me the link to WT:GUNDAM#Images that we can use in the first place? Xander271 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Xander271
Whether he explicitly stated so or not, he was enforcing Wikipedia's polices relating to non-free content. Now if you want to keep throwing this tirade, you can go to WP:ANI. --Farix (Talk) 15:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
On my first post on this section, I have given the link to the NFCC talk page, in which it is talking about the copyright problem explicitly. I am not online 24 hours, and my online time might be different since I am in a different time zone. I tried my best to show why the picture should not be included, and included all the information I find relevant to this topic when I am online, even when I happen to just come by at work to check words out for my translation job. I am sorry to be a bad ambassador, but I am trying my best to protect both you and wikipedia from infringing copyright laws. In fact, all of this can be avoided if we can all just stop accusing others and continue with our edits. Please calm down and try to step on the other side to view things, do not take everything offensive. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I might have had empty years in editing, but that does not mean my points are less valid than any other wiki user. My inactivity has nothing to do with the validity of my post/ question - or the reasonableness of those who agree with it. MythSearcher came very close to a personal attack with me and Xander271 with the "BTW" comment to Xander271 and the overall condition of the answer submitted. -BTW Remember WP:NPA (that chestnut never gets old)- As said inactivity has nothing to do with validity in this case- because Im not logged on does not mean Im not watching, reading and using wiki just like everybody else; and all this post was for was to ask a question and have it answered- not answer with a hint of condescension -BTW I'm never to far from my own contributions (logged on or logged off) :-D BTzJM --AKIRA70 (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
What personal attack is that? I am simply stating the fact that he is replying to a person that is not very active and the repeated addressing to your account name just because you started the conversation long ago seems to be talking to someone who was not showing interest to the topic at that particular time when he made all the fuss. I am not stating you are not interested in the topic and/or talking to you is useless. The fact remained that you did not give your opinion at that time(almost a year ago) after repeated mentioning of your name by him, thus I am only reminding him that you might not just pop up and start supporting his arguments nor your openning statement is supporting his arguments since it predates his actions. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 08:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

AUs in intro[edit]

A few weeks back, someone edited the intro so it now basically mentions every AU except G. As originaly written, the intro had about 2 or 3 AU examples to contrast with the similar UC ones. Now however, I'd suggest we either include G or scale it back to just a handful of AU examples--HellCat86 (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Franchise Commonalities[edit]

From my understanding, every Gundam series with different calendar system is a self-contained world. However, every series tends to have the same ideas. There are always normal people and advanced people, and the hero is always a teenage boy of the special type. The Gundams always fight cyclops mobile suits. There's always a bad guy in a metal mask. The hero's Gundam is always white, blue, and red. These are all things you expect in a "Gundam" anime. It would be nice if this article more directly addressed these commonalities. (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

First, this is Original Reseach, which is against wiki policies. Second, a lot of series does not have what you said, in the UC timeline, 08th MS Team, 0080, 0083, MS Igloo heroes have no special abilities, not even a single Newtype appeared in them as well(OK, MS Igloo showed Char Aznable's Zaku and RX-78 in it with no cast for their pilots), these heroes are also all in their 20's except 0080 got a non-pilot 12 year-old boy. In the Future Century, G Gundam that is, there are no advance people, the hero is in fact a full grown adult in his 20's, and no cyclops suits appeared even as grunts. In After Colony, again, no advanced people, no cyclops suits. In After War, the hero is specifically mentioned to be not a Newtype. In Correct Century(Turn A), no advanced people, all are simple humans. In the Cosmic Era timeline, Stargazer's pilot is a female, adult, colour scheme of the suit is white and yellow. In the newest Gundam 00, no advanced people, celestral being is the name of a group. It only comes down to First Gundam, Zeta Gundam, ZZ, F91, V, Seed, Seed-Destiny that shares these commonilities. So, 7 out of 18 is not common. The mask, well, it also appeared in Raideen (which preceed First Gundam) and did not appear in 08th MS Team, MS Igloo, 0080, 0083, ZZ, (You could hardly claim Zeta's Quatro uses a mask as well), V, Endless Waltz, X, 00. MythSearchertalk 10:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Gundam cast members[edit]

Something needs to be done with List of Gundam cast members. In general, cast lists are discouraged and tend to be deleted when put through AfD or PROD (and there are several Prodded right now, in fact). I would have prodded this list with the others, but I don't have any idea which character lists it may be redundant with, and I don't know enough about the Gundam franchise to hunt down the information myself. This article should ultimately be deleted. —Dinoguy1000 21:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Prod it. I do not have any source stating the cast members are notable as a whole, and that page is a poor mix of VA and seiyu that is very unorganized. It seems to be just a listified version of a deleted cat. I see no point in keeping it. MythSearchertalk 07:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll go ahead and do it then. —Dinoguy1000 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing article[edit]

I added the "Confusing" header to the article because I can't get my head around this article. I looked up Gundam to get to know something about the series, but right from the intro a whole heap of alternative timelines and models and types of mechas are mentioned. If there's anyone here who is familiar with the series, I suggest a good and clear revision should be done on this article. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 21:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried, but I usually make things more confusing, so I guess if it makes you feel that way, you can revert it. MythSearchertalk 13:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The intro is much better now, great work! Still, the article is in need of a good revision. For example, the section Distinctive characteristics starts with a link to the Japanese wiki (without an apparent reason) followed by: "Gundam is the name or nickname of several mobile suits or mobile fighters, although some works, such as G-Saviour and Mobile Suit Gundam: MS IGLOO do not have units containing the term Gundam (Although in the Third episode of MS IGLOO, the RX-78-2 Gundam was seen briefly in grainy footage destroying a Zaku)." --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand why is it confusing, I have to think about it for sometime before I understand the sentence you have quoted. I will try my best in fixing this.(or these) If you can be more specific on which parts look confusing, it will be of great help. MythSearchertalk 07:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Long term vandalism alert on this page[edit]

The user is using an IP address 118.100.X.X and 124.13.X.X(most recently, and persistently adding false info stating a new anime called Gundam aqua will be release in the future. (History from newest to older edits:,,,,, In which all are registered to TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD, it might be an open proxy, or simply someone who waited for their ISP to change the dynamic IP of their service. Since it is at least the 6th time of this unsourced edit, and is sufficiently notified and even warned of it being false, the persistent addition of such material is simply vandalism, at least should be viewed as such after this publicly announced concern about such material. I will also add a comment inline in the main article to try to stop the addition of such false material. MythSearchertalk 07:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Noted. E Wing (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Life size Gundam pics[edit]

This blog has many high quality images of the life sized Gundam under construction and finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talkcontribs) 06:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Capital "g"?[edit]

When referring to "gundam machines" (as opposed to the title "Gundam"), shouldn't the "g" be lowercase? I'm not a huge Gundam guy; so I'm relying on you guys to tell me! Thanks, ask123 (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Either way works. Gundam is the name(or more correct, part of the name) of many suits using it as a collective term can be capitalized or decapitalized. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes to lede[edit]

I made some changes to the lede -- a lot of grammar corrections and some wording changes. If anyone has issues, please bring them up here. I'm happy to discuss. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought you mean lead but your edits did not change the lead but the concept section instead. portmanteau seems like the word that should be used here, am I correct? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly relevant[edit]

Regards, -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 13:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

SD Gundam series totally not mention[edit]

I figured suddenly that this article have no mention of the SD Gundam series that should be also a very popular spinoff. Anyone with enough knowledge can add a section of it here? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

I have counted 8~9 with DD MM formats against 5 MM DD format(with one being changed from DD MM to MM DD before without revert, I made the original contribution so I am sure about the change). Anyone oppose to changing all to the same DD MM format? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the date format being made consistent through the article, and normally it makes sense to stick with the date format used by of the first major contributor. The problem I see is that most of the other Gundam articles are using the MM DD format. If the date format form this, the main article, is set to DD MM format, it will be inconsistent with the sub-articles. I would think that this may qualify for the "substantial reason" clause of WP:DATE to switch from one format to another. —Farix (t | c) 02:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, here is the first edit with a full date on it.[5] It uses the MM DD style. However, the article did go for over 5 years without a single full date. —Farix (t | c) 03:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have in mind that we should do whichever is less work. The MSG article used MM DD (12:5), I guess MM DD it is. For the sub articles, just let them be whatever they are in until we need to edit them. Or, we use the greed approach and change the articles to use the dominant format in that article is using now. The inconsistency between articles could be ignored. Which one do you think is better? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The dates in the MSG article are now set to MDY format for consistency within itself. I've just when through most of the other top level articles for each series and they all use the MDY format as well. After War Gundam X is the only other article that used a mixed format. I investigate further to see which format was used first, but I'm thinking it is not the one used on the episode table. —Farix (t | c) 12:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Date format for Gundam X was MDY. The episode list was a later addition that used the DMY format. I've switched it all to MDY for consistency since it is the format used by the first major contributor. —Farix (t | c) 13:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, so I will remind myself to use the MDY format afterwards. (please remind me is I accidentally make mistakes) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Script converted this to use MDY format per this discussion. Gundam (mobile suit) is another article with an inconsistent date format, so I've opened a discussion on its talk page. Unfortunately, the date-delinking script I'm using doesn't have an option where I can delink the dates while preserving all of the the date formats. —Farix (t | c) 03:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting information[edit]

Recently got hold of a 2006 magazine called Characters, the special topic of that issue is Gundam's Legend, and one of the interesting information I see is that the Genre of the series was actually in dispute in the 80's. A critic in the 80's criticized Gundam and denied it being in the Sci-fi genre, and some hardcore SF fans had debates with Gundam fans about this as well. Sounds like good information to be included, anyone got English sources as well? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 02:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gunpla Builders[edit]

I dont think Gunpla Builders should be shown as the 8th gundam generation, i dont think that its really a gundam series and shouldnt be in the gundam series section at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think people care if anonymous care about something or not. 02:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • this is a discussion and anyone can voice their opinions on wikipedia, and mine is tthat gunpla builders is not art. 9:58,02 October (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
  • Your opinion is meaningless, wait until you win Pulitzer Prize and critique it in Time. L-Zwei (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, technically, shouldn't Gunpla Builders be listed in section 2.5 instead/as well? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

New Gundam Series will be called AGE[edit]
Sunrise, I AM DISAPPOINT! Blackgaia02 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I must remind you that this is not a discussion forum, don't put your own personal comment here. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Gundam Official now shut down[edit]

It has been confirmed that Gundam Official is no longer active and so the appropriate action must be taken for this. - (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Use the archive instead, then. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The new official English site is — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Dumping ground for review[edit]

Been trying to clean up the page a little, split off the card game (a wreck) and the cultural impact of Gundam. This makes it easier to streamline and cuts the dumping ground of the content into something more encyclopedic and authoritative. I'm doing some additional trimmings, but I'm not able to stick them in useful spots. So here is some it below:

Extended content
  • In an interview in the February 2009 issue of OtonaFami, Yoshiyuki Tomino commented on the lack of planning of Sunrise and Bandai and that because a good movie needs 3–4 years of production time, it is too late for him to do anything for 2009, the 30th anniversary of Gundam. However, he did comment that it was not too late to begin considering the 35th anniversary. His wish was that in the future, a common sentence people would use would be to Think like Gundam.[1]
  • Series based on Gundam models - Although not directly related to Gundam, these series incorporate Gundam models as part of the stories (it might be noted that Genshiken and Sgt. Frog were created by subdivisions of Bandai and Media Factory and Sunrise, respectively):
  • Sgt. Frog
  • Genshiken

The mobile suit units are considered the representing unit in the "real robot" type of mecha. The games' units are often separated by being "super robots", powerful mecha that often have near-limitless powers and technology, but have a shorter range of movement, and real robots, mecha that are physically weaker, but possess a wider range of movement and accuracy. There have been so many mobile suit units that it is impossible to tell a distinct style, however, mobile suits are extremely agile and have an enormous variety of weapons.

  • Original design series and variations - Due to the sheer popularity of the Gundam franchise, especially the mobile suit design, several "Original Design Series" were published. These series are drawings and precise specifications for additional mobile suit units not found in the original animated material:
  • Gundam Century (1981)

Gundam Century was a book published on September 22, 1981. At first it is an unofficial anime guide of Mobile Suit Gundam, published by Minori books(みのり書房) as an extra appendix of the monthly magazine 月刊OUT. The book served as the basics of all the technology and realistic demonstration of Gundam, in which at publish, it is a collection of fan material along with interviews and off-time works from the original Gundam creators like Yoshiyuki Tomino, Kunio Okawara and Yoshikazu Yasuhiko. Also collected various real world space exploration science and referenced scientific journals like L5 News, Science, Physics Today. The settings in the book has since then been adopted and endorsed by the official company Sunrise and Bandai. Although most of the numbers and history has since then been changed a few times, (for example, the One Year War started in November 0079 instead of the current official timeline January 0079).[2][3] the book is regarded as the pioneer of the realism of the Gundam franchise, and is acknowledged in Gundam Official and is republished by as an official publication in the year 2000, named as Gundam Century Renewal Version.

  • Mobile Suit Variations (1983)
    • Also known as "MSV", these variations exist from the One Year War, and considered to be official and canonical in the Universal Century timeline.
  • Mobile Suit X (1984)
    • Also known as "MSX", these are new models for a proposed, but never produced new animation series, and considered to be official and canonical in the Universal Century timeline.
  • Z-MSV
    • Variations from the Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam series.
  • ZZ-MSV
    • Variations from the Mobile Suit Double Zeta Gundam series.
    • Variations from the Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack movie.
  • Kunio Okawara's MS Collection (M-MSV)
    • Kunio Okawara's personal reinterpretations of his original designs.
  • F91-MSV
    • Variations from the Mobile Suit Gundam F91 movie.
  • V-MSV
    • Variations from the Mobile Suit Victory Gundam series.
    • Variations from the Mobile Suit Gundam SEED series.
  • SEED Destiny MSV
    • Variations from the Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny series.
  • 00V
    • Variations from the Mobile Suit Gundam 00 series.

  1. ^ Yoshiyuki Tomino scolding the 30th anniversary of Gundam (富野由悠季「ガンダム」30周年を叱る), OtonaFami (オトナファミ) 2009 February
  2. ^ Gundam Century Renewal Version
  3. ^ Gundam Officials, references

More can be added and removed as necessary or debated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


How should we go about making an introductory article to the Gundam media and works? I think branching off the calender issue would be helpful at this point, as that is more in-depth knowledge. I also wonder if we need a chronology of works instead of a break down of media by series or timelines... someone who knows nothing of Gundam will be confused with such decisions. I'm going to draft some changes off line, but streamlining and getting down "What is Gundam?" should be the focus of this article. Not a list of media or things which exist, but a highly condensed and authoritative introduction without quibbling over the franchise's content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Cluttering this article with the card game and detailed calender information and cultural impact is a bad idea. I've reverted Folken's redirecting which did not even re-insert the content. I'm working on this and considering over 100+ reference works on Gundam exist, sourcing is not a problem for just about anything in its universe. Clean up begins at the top and moves down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Stop ignoring guidelines such as WP:AVOIDSPLIT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Zeon should redirect to Universal Century[edit]

Zeon is exclusive to that universe only, change the redirect to the Universal Century articlen then make a section detailing its factions.--Primus1x (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bsgcafe\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Under "Franchise" Says 2066?[edit]

Under the list of different gundam series it has a note saying that Tomino himself confirmed MSGundam takes place in 2066. It doesn't provide a source, and after a quick google search all i can find are sites claiming that it was written in a proposal or pre-production memo for the show. I think that this needs a source first of all, and second of all the fact that its only a pre-production memo (or whatever) needs to be clarified. For now im just gonna delete that part. (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gundam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)