Talk:G-Saviour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Is G-Saviour considered canon anymore?

It cannot simply be made Uncanon because it's unpopular. Plus, It's set so far into the future that It really doesn't matter.

So, Simple answer: Yes.

Actually, while I can't site a source directly to sunrise, numerous sites, uncluding mahq.net, the Unofficial North American Authority on Gundam information, have stated that Sunrise has officially annouced that G-Saviour has been removed from the Universal Century Canon. Here is what they had to say. (It's the Second question, here)

Numerous unofficial sites saying that there is an official announcement is not the same as an actual official announcement. Until there is an official announcement, the article should not claim anything beyond what Bandai's Gundam Perfect Web's G-Saviour DVD page (Japanese), Sunrise's G-Saviour DVD page (Japanese), Bandai Visual's G-Saviour DVD page (Japanese), and even Bandai Entertainment's GundamOfficial.com's Frequent Asked Questions has. Egan Loo 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes they can. Sunrise can do whatever they want to the series, they own it. If they say it's not cannon, it's not. I say good ridance. G-Savior pretty much undoes all the advancements from the previous series anyway.

--24.15.243.244 04:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the issue—Sunrise can do whatever it wants with G-Saviour, but Sunrise has not announced G-Saviour is not canon. There are "numerous" unofficial sources that claim that Sunrise announced that G-Saviour is not canon, but no announcement has actually surfaced. (See the G-Saviour page on the official Sunrise website.) Part of the reason is that Sunrise simply doesn't issue announcements like that. Once Sunrise makes an announcement or (more probably, but still unlikely) creates a story that specifically rewrites the history of the post-UC 0220 period, then this should definitely be noted in the article. Until then, unsourced fan speculation does not belong in Wikipedia. Egan Loo 05:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! In fact, it hardly makes sense, as the only Victory Gundam level technology shown was the beam shield, while everything else was a downgrade, and I don't see how technology can decrease by that ammount in 70 years. And, to Egan Loo, was reporting me for Vandalism really necessary? I stopped editing it two days ago. And, anyone, if you have any information regarding whether or not G-Saviour was or was not de-canoned, then please, share your proof with us.

I did not report you for vandalism on just this article. I reported 71.245.243.36 for several acts, including vandalizing the J. J. Abrams article by replacing the entire first article with "STFU NOOB!", reverting corrections to this article after repeated warnings, and repeating the erroneous information on Sunrise's stance in Mobile Suit Victory Gundam, Universal Century, List of Mobile Weapons, and Age of the Warring Space States. Four of the articles were altered in the last two days. (See the history page on each of these articles for the "paper" trail.) Please, 71.245.243.36 or AEUG, respect the Wikipedia process and only include information that is verifiable and citable. That is what makes the Wikipedia different from many other websites. Egan Loo 05:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I see, and, while the J. J. Abrams article was outright vandalism, the others are not vandalism. It doesn't matter who is right, here, as vandalism corresponds only to obvious misinformation, while the G-Saviour topic is debatable, and, therefore, not considered vandalism. Still, I do recall that Sunrise did de canon it, but, should you refuse to believe it, then I guess that's your choice, but I still feel that you should make a note of the fact that there is still a debate going on, as 71.245.243.36, 24.15.243.244, you, and myself alike are proof that people generally don't agree on the article.

A first attempt to add erroneous information in good faith is not vandalism; indeed, it is welcomed for its good intentions. However, repeated attempts to explicitly add erroneous information and remove verifiable information, despite repeated warnings and clear explanations of Wikipedia's policy, cease to be in good faith and is considered vandalism.
It's not a matter of belief itself when it comes to Wikpedia sources — the very reason for having only citable, verifiable information is so we don't have to depend on people's individual beliefs. There is no debate that no one can present an actual official statement from Sunrise on G-Saviour's timeframe besides the original UC223 date. Once there is a newer official statement from Sunrise, there shouldn't be a debate there either — that new statement should be immediately added. However, fan debates without citable official sources don't belong in Wikipedia articles. Egan Loo 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


The G-Saviour title has been discontinued in North American and Japan! http://www.gundamofficial.com/www_gs Karozoa 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this error message is not yet true in Japan. It's discontinued in North America, but it's still available in Japan. See its entries in the official Gundam, Sunrise, and Bandai Visual websites in Japan, as linked in the Wikipedia article. Amazingly, Amazon.co.jp still has it for 24-hour delivery, long after Amazon US stopped stocking it. If this movie was discontinued in Japan, the Bandai Visual website would normally remove its entry, like it did for the box set version of the first Macross series. Egan Loo 05:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In any case, I still treasure my G-Saviour DVD! Karozoa 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/-/s/Talk%7EG-Saviour_8001.html"