Talk:MSN-03 Jagd Doga
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Unreference, AGAIN
Maybe you'll get it if I remove things from the article. The following section is NOT referenced ANYWHERE in the links provided as references.
“ | Only two units appeared in the movie and are confirmed to be built. The first unit, which spots a dark blue colour and a prominent antenna on its head, was piloted by artificially-enhanced cyber-Newtype Gyunei Guss. His unit was equipped with a beam assault rifle mounting an attached grenade launcher. Gyunei used this mobile suit to fight Amuro Ray twice, first in the prototype RGZ-91 Re-GZ, and later in the custom-engineered RX-93 Nu Gundam. Amuro bested him in this second engagement, completely destroying the Jagd Doga with a single bazooka round. The second unit, painted red, was piloted by another artificially-strengthed cyber-Newtype, Quess Paraya. This unit was equipped with a potent beam-based mega Gatling gun. After being damaged in combat, Quess abandoned this unit and subsequently came to use the mobile armor Alpha Azieru. | ” |
This information has been removed per WP:RS. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 12:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is just no satiating you, is there? At any rate. I've added a few references to some third party sources, one to Bandai (for reliability) and a third to the Wayback Machine's archive of Gundam Project's relevant page (at the time of its writing, Mark Simmons was just a Gundam Fan, but is now a consultant for Bandai in the localization of Gundam products for release in North America, so he should fulfill both the third-party and reliable source criterion. Plus he's written books on the subject, so he's published too! Ha-ha!). Users may have to make a small amount of conjecture to link up Bandai's (reliable) plot synopsis with MAHQ's (third party) review that details the exact usage of the Jagd Doga in the film. Additionally, I am told that the Jagd Doga is included in Gundam: The Official Guide's Char's Counterattack section, so I've added that as well. I don't own the book myself, so I cannot make exact citations as of this moment. I'll try to acquire it later. At any rate, short of providing a BitTorrent link to download the movie for themselves (which I hear is frowned upon, piracy and all), I believe this is about as close as one can get with free sources. MalikCarr 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, I've added a reference to the Gundam Technical Manuals (#4, specifically). I had thought these were out-of-print, but used booksellers at Amazon.com are still selling them, so I've ordered the whole bundle. I'll make exactly page and chapter citations after they arrive and I have time to peruse. MalikCarr 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- "There is just no satiating you, is there?" No. Which would you prefer, this or the articles being mass AfD? I don't do mass AfD but someone will, or prod it. Or whatever. Now that it's fixed I can move on. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clean Article
Right! With Gundam Technical Manual in hand I've cleaned the article up and put in inline citations and what have you. Looks sharp now, eh? MalikCarr 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: SD Gundam Force
I'm not going to accept your crumpled infobox, no matter how much you try and polish it with additional content to the article. I don't like it, and the project doesn't like it. Maikeru made a perfectly nice one that kept a few important bits in, and everyone but you thought it was nice. Why do brief armaments and dimensions have to be a deal-breaker for you, dammit? We're warring over a very small detail, and it's stupid.
At any rate, the SD Gundam Force paragraph is helpful because it supports a wider viewing base and establishes further notability. Just the same, I don't want to include it without a good source to back it up - during the deletion purges, "unsourced" was one of the chief claims of the deletion camp, and they were right. If you really want to distance yourself from those book-burners, why not hold off on adding content that would be considered "unsourced" until such a time as it won't degrade the overall article? That's all I ask. MalikCarr 02:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In universe
The article needs to keep clearly in mind that the article is about a fictional storyline. The article needs to maintain the perspective that the story /storyline IS a story and bring relation to the real world, as per the In Universe tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.42 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)