Talk:Psyco Gundam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Not a fan site

While argueably a nice contribution to a fansite, Wikipedia is not a fansite WP:NOT. This article needs quite a bit of work to bring it to encyclopedia standards.GundamsRus 15:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted, and appropriately disregarded because it is blatantly false and inaccurate. MalikCarr 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What - WP IS a fansite? Unfortuantely for you, it is not a fansite. I am assuming that the items you have sourced are sourced accurately, but there are numerous claims that you make that you have provided no sources to back up. I will keep tagging them until you DO provide sources.GundamsRus 00:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reasonably asked for you to provide sources for your claims. Do you really want me to just remove the uncited materials?GundamsRus 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Everything is cited appropriately - there is zero unsourced material in this article. Instead of just randomly sticking in templates in this article I just created yesterday, why don't you act in a constructive fashion, get the books and read the magazines yourself, and you'll see that everything is as I have stated it. Or would you prefer to drop the AGF ball and say I just made those up? MalikCarr 00:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, "there is no unsourced content in this article, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop sticking "citation needed" in every paragraph like Christmas decorations" nice try, but statements like "So and so is unstable" are OPINION and need to be backed up by sources. Each item I had flagged needs to be backed up for it to appear in Wikipedia. If one of the sources you have already used supports your claim, you need to re-cite for that claim.GundamsRus 09:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, buddy, are you even reading anything I say? There. Is. No. Opinion. In. This. Article. I can't make it any more obvious than that. Quite literally every claim that is made in this article can be found in one, or more, of the citations I have provided. See the citations at the end of a paragraph? Unless otherwise noted (by another citation, for example), that applies to the whole thing. You know, for how many times you've shoved fifty-odd policies in my face, you'd think you would have known things like this... at any rate, much as I appreciate that you've stopped hiding behind anonymous addresses and actually used your registered account, your edits still hold very little water. I already asked you to read them sometime, but that seems to have gone right over your head, so I'm really not sure what else to try and accomplish at this point as far as your concerns are... concerned. MalikCarr 12:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You can keep claiming that it is sourced all you want. Until you actually provide citations to show that the information tagged is not properly sourced.GundamsRus 13:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style and tone concerns

Please see WP:Peacock, WP:HEAD#Article titles, headings and sections, writing about fiction; problems with in - universe perspective; WP:Style#Captions; WP:tone GundamsRus 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to add any more unrelated policies to your laundry list there? This article doesn't violate any of them, and rather ironically, you've yet to actually note areas this article is weak in... for one thing, I'm very short on third-party sources right now. Hey, I've got an idea. Instead of just randomly sticking unrelated junk all over this article, why don't you help me find some of those third-party sources? Then we can actually make the article better instead of sitting around reverting each other all day. I'm assuming you are interested in improving things, anyway. Please don't prove me wrong? MalikCarr 12:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
When you have addressed that laundry list of easy things to correct, we can get to the more difficult ones. It is not my job to provide reliable sources. Quite frankly I dont have time considering that I need to go back and re-flag all the errors in the other articles that you and Jtrainor keep removing without providing anything to fix the errors.GundamsRus 13:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

Okay, after responding to the request posted at WP:AN/I, I looked over the edits & while I could block one or both of you for 3RR violations, I felt the best thing to do was protect this page at the wrong version for 24 hours, & hope that the two of you try to talk to each other, rather than to talk past each other. The later route will only lead to the two of you going for each other's throats.

The tragedy here is that both of you have valid points. For example, I think GundamsRus is right about changing the section header to "Other appearances" from "Elsewhere and Miscellany": for one reason, the word "miscellany" & its derivatives attract the wolves who want to purge Wikipedia of all Trivia sections. On the other hand, many of the changes GundamsRus is pushing really are little more than style preferences. For example, the passage "The behemoth Psyco Gundam was troubled pilot Four Murasame's personal battlewagon" is encyclopedic: "behemoth" refers to size, "troubled pilot" describes the character's state of mind. Whether both of those adjectives are accurate ought to be obvious to any reader.

And if you two still can't talk civilly to each other, I then suggest seeking mediation on this matter with an uninvolved third party. I'd hate to see either of you let your temper get the better of you & result in your block. -- llywrch 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

'behemoth' according to who? what you consider behemoth may not count as behemoth to me or to the guy who drives [Image:Liebherr T282.jpg] everyday - that is a subjective word and if used, should be sourced. Also with 'troubled' - who is calling him 'troubled'? that is clearly a subjective word when applied to a human (or character) and needs to be sourced if used.GundamsRus 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, next time you post a giant picture in the middle of a talk page, why don't you shrink it down instead of obscuring my entire screen?
Oh, I didnt think it was behemoth sized. sorry. hmm i guess we have different opinions about that.GundamsRus 02:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
In any case, you've demonstrated your obvious unfamiliarity with the topic (as well as a lack of reading of sources provided) with the above. For one thing, no source (official or third-party) has contested Four's mental state. Also, it's a female. Before you start making accusations about the sourcing of statements in this article, why don't you READ THE SOURCES PROVIDED. The impetus is not on me to make you read them by inserting a footnote in every sentence. MalikCarr 02:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have a source that calls him 'troubled' or 'unstable' or 'the bestest badest most meanest all around dude' - if you cite it from a reliable source, I don't care that its in the article. But when there is reasonable contestation of the claim in wikipedia - where editors can add stuff to paragraphs that isnt included in the original sourced version - you should provide citations for any contested / contestable statements. And if you do, yes, the citations will be hanging like Christmas ornaments - check out any FA article to see the decorated trees.GundamsRus 02:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(and I didnt mean to have the picture show at all, but when I clicked 'save' by accident, the effect seemed too appropriate to fix.)

What in the name of God are you going on about? There was no original "sourced version," I created this article from scratch based on the sources I have listed and cited appropriately. YOU are the one who keeps contesting every thing I write, regardless of whether I have a citation or not. I'm so utterly confused right now. MalikCarr 07:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if, as you contend, an article at some point in time has a reference at the end of a paragraph that supports the statements within the paragraph, and I am just saying IF because I don't believe your article did, the Wikipedia forum allows any editor at any time to come in and place any information within that paragraph, including information that is NOT supported by the citation at the end of the paragraph. In not too many of these edits, the claims that ARE actually supported by that citation will get lost among the dross - but- following your logic that a citation at the end of a paragraph supports all statements within the paragraph - the dross 'is cited' as well and anyone attempting to verify which claims are actually valid, will need to read through every page of the alleged source to find out what the source says. Therefore every claim within an article should be clearly attributed to WHO is making the claim, in WHICH source. "AUTHOR SOANDSO, in NAMEOFSOURCE, stated that, 'the unstable Four' was a reliable means of 'creat[ing] interesting plot' lines for the series." {citation}.

While you may not think such a phrasing is as 'stylish' and as entertaining to read as 'was the troubled Four's reliable battlewagon' -Wikipedia purpose is NOT to provide 'entertaining reads' - it is to be a collection of notable, verifiable, NPOV information from reliable sources. When editors add inaccurate information to a version of an article that is clearly and abundantly sourced from the begining, it is much easier to address any new edits for their validity. Hopefully, it also acts as a guide to the future editors to keep away from 'in universe' perspective and deters them simply adding dross in the first place.GundamsRus 11:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To further clarify, if a character(s) within the series call Four 'troubled', cite the claim from the primary source and I am satisfied. If a reviewer or developer uses the term 'troubled' to describe Four, cite the secondary source and I am happy. If YOU, while watching the series decide that Four's actions are those of a 'troubled' person - that is Original Research and I am not satisfied.GundamsRus 12:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, where to begin...
First of all, my wording is not "entertaining", because it is not designed to entertain the user. I tend to use more colorful language in the article because it improves the quality of the article by using a more varied language. Any collegiate-level communications course will tell you that variety in work, whether it be vocal variety in public speaking or prose variety in literature and writing, makes that work more appealing and informative to readers/listeners. For what it's worth, your references to PEACOCK have a logical application, because editors -have- used colorful language as a quiet way of pushing a POV. However, in the best interest of keeping articles I write on the project (that is, not violating NPOV and verifiability), I have made careful use of language to avoid POV-related problems. For example, you'll note that nowhere in the article is a "flowery" term used to describe the superiority or inferiority of a mobile suit or character to any other; they are all used in standalone contexts that can be referenced in intention, if not exact language, by the provided sources.
For what it's worth, the GundamOfficial.com explanation of cyber-newtypes states, in no uncertain language, that they are mentally unstable. I'll insert this into the article when it becomes unprotected and we can leave this business behind us.
Finally, I case you haven't noticed, I religiously police articles
to the point of WP:OWN? GundamsRus 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Review the policy you're citing sometime; WP:OWN covers the ownership of a specific article based on the user's contributions, not maintaining a high standard of sourceability. Of course if you'd care to take a look at the history pages, you'll note Mythsearcher (talk ยท contribs) has contributed not-insignificantly to this article, and I'm not reverting him, am I?
The fact that you actively solicited his contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mythsearcher#Psyco_Gundam does not do much to counter the idea that this is your protected article and only those edits YOU approve of can be added.GundamsRus 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Could that be because he adds sourced content to the article? GASP AND SHOCK. Your WP:OWN accusation isn't even factually correct, much less a matter of interpretation or view. MalikCarr 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have seen clear evidence of "Minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording are disputed on a daily basis by one editor. The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article." and "An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it. " and the first half of "In many cases (but not all), primary editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, .... Editors of this type often welcome discussion, " but not the second half while seeing something of "The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other" so I am completely comfortable with my suggestion that the WP:OWN "This page in a nutshell: If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so." comments on this situation.GundamsRus 13:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
God, I give up. You're not worth the keystrokes debating with. MalikCarr 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
that I significantly contribute to to remove unsourced content. You should know this better than anyone, being on A Man In Black's side as far as this revert war is concerned, since he has been hell-bent on keeping unsourced content in the Jagd Doga article. "Unsourced" was one of the easiest ways to mass-delete Gundam articles in the big purge last year, and given the amount of effort I put into these works, I refuse to allow unsourced content into them for exactly that reason. It's bad for the article, it's bad for the project, and it's bad for my brain. You think I keep saying things about "adding sourced content" for my health? I don't care if there's something ground-breaking about the Psyco Gundam you saw on the internet somewhere, without a primary or secondary source for it, I don't want it in the article.
Addendum, it's not necessary to state, in prose, where the sources are; that's what a properly-formatted footnote is for. MalikCarr 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, fun fact. I just took a look at the "Guide to writing better articles" in that quaint template you've plastered on the top of the article, and it does indeed include a section on peacock terms. But see, here's where it gets interesting. All of the examples cited are intended to push a particular POV with the use of colorful language. Oh snap, it appears my assessment about WP:PEACOCK and POV were correct!
In summation, there is nothing wrong with colorful language written from a neutral point of view. MalikCarr 13:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Declaring someone 'troubled' IS POV. Declaring something a 'behemoth' is less so, but is still AN OPINION that should be backed up. And yes, while tagging a citation at the end of the statement is technically all that is needed, citing the source within the text helps to keep the article from drifting, floating, running and sinking into 'in universe' language.GundamsRus 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Allright, tell you what. You're not listening, and I'm through debating with you. I've supported all my points, even shot holes in yours, I've offered an olive leaf of cooperation on this, and you've responded by being a brick wall. Go join A Man In Black being a total obstructionist, it's not worth the effort. MalikCarr 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is still way too 'in universe' for me, but I am glad you sourced the labeling of characters 'unstable'.GundamsRus 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how in-universe it is for you. What matters is whether it complies with policy, and this article clearly does. Jtrainor 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets aim for the minimum standards!!!GundamsRus 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to further note that you have a lot of gall to insist this article does not meet standards, when you were defending that horrible white privelege article in AfD when it's quality was lower than Psyco Gundam's before it was deleted the first time. Tend to the fires in your own house before you come around to pour gasoline on ours. Jtrainor 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:GUNDAM got too much articles that hardly meets the standards, I'd say aim for meeting the minimum for now and come back later when we get most of the standard failing articles up to the par.

MythSearchertalk 16:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

The "In Gundam ZZ" section is quite short at the moment because I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. If anyone would care to add more content to that section (appropriately sourced, of course) then by all means, please do. MalikCarr 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniquely not unique

I am very confused about when the definition of 'unique' changed from meaning 'only one' to 'as many as we want' - Can someone provide a definition of 'unique' that supports the continual reversion to the version using the peacock term to apply in a case where more than one exist? Or are you stating that Psyco and Mark II are actually the same - in which case the Mark II information should be removed from the info box since it is covered by the Psyco?GundamsRus (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am kinda confuse about the term, too. I guess it means a unique model for each of the unit, which is quite strangely used but should be correct in a sense. I'd rather the whole sentence is rewritten to something like Each of the Psyco Gundams recieved their own modelization scale, different from other mobile suits or something clearer. MythSearchertalk 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The only use of the word was to indicate that no other mobile suits are covered in 1/300th scale models. That's all. MalikCarr (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
and now if you can provide some kind of source to back that claim, we will all be happy.GundamsRus (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
see, at least we can get this over with some civil discussion. about the source, I'd say going over the whole list of models and picking out the odd scaled ones is not original research, thus we don't need inline source for that, if you want the whole list, it is in the July, 1988 issue, volume 108 of Monthly Bandai Making Journal, although the release date of the models are 1985 and 1986 respectively, instead. Both are 600 yen and Psyco Gundam sold 390000 units and Psyco Gundam Mk-II sold 240000 units. (sales figures are only until May, 1988) MythSearchertalk 06:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starting sentance with numerical fraction

User:Jtrainor please show some manual of style that condones starting a sentance with a numerical fraction - or are your reverts simply based on the fact that I did the editGundamsRus (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this edit, fractions in the very beginning is very strange indeed. MythSearchertalk 03:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psyco Gundam Family

Well, due to the popularity of this page edit history, I am not sure if I should add this in or not. The Psyco Gundam series include more than the Psyco Gundam and Psyco Gundam Mk-II. Mk-III(already mentioned) was redesigned for the Gundam War card game and Katoki Hajime showed some interest and refined one himself in his art works. Kunio himself designed two Prototype Psyco Gundam(MRX-007 in M-MSV and MRX-008 in Four Story[novel]) and a Mass-production type Psyco Gundam(M-MSV) as well. There is also a Saikoro Gundam Mk-II(Dice body, Mk-II head) I know that these are not very notable but I think they increases the notability of the Psyco Gundam, and at least the names and original appearances should be mentioned and cited in the article. MythSearchertalk 03:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. Psyco Gundam reappeared in Turn A Gundam being the Black Doll also worth mentioning. MythSearchertalk 03:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant to include the M-MSV units, since those are pretty damn obscure. However, the Gundam War iteration and the MRX-008 in Four's Story probably merit a mention, and the dice-bodied Mark II most certainly does. I'll leave the implementation of this new data to you - be sure to source it and all! MalikCarr (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Four Story's MRX-008 needs mention of the MRX-007 Prototype since it is the second prototype(due to the first being a failure), so that one also needs mentioning. MythSearchertalk 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I forgot about that. Okay, I guess we could briefly include a mention of that guy. You'll have to forgive me for being so conservative about adding more in-universe variants - while I would like to involve as much fiction as possible, those huge lists of Zakus are prime candidates for deletionists to nuke, and I wouldn't want that to go down here, you know? MalikCarr (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand, yet at the same time, I think having a lot of varients in a lot of different sources increases notability, since it is a demostration of the unit being noticed and various producers paid attention and interested in it. So I thnk a short sentence like a prototype Psyco Gundam, MRX-007, in the size of a standard mobile suit was designed by Kunio Okawara in his own mobile suit collection(a.k.a. M-MSV) and a further developed prototype unit, MRX-008, which is significantly larger and resembles Psyco Gundam, MRX-009, in size was introduced in the novel, Four Story. should be sufficient. MythSearchertalk 05:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds dandy. You may want to include a link to the Prototype Psyco's profile on MAHQ in the external links section as well. MalikCarr (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bosses and scope of article

"The Mark III is a boss unit, and not normally available to players without cheating or use of a "game enhancing" device, such as a GameShark. "

  • That the Mark III is a boss unit is a verifiable fact from a primary source, and I have no qualms about that.
  • That boss units are "not normally available to players", while also verifiable, is not within the scope of this article about anime.
  • The phrase "without cheating or use of a "game enhancing" device, such as a GameShark. " is not only out of the scope of the article, but also verging on violation of WP:NOT - WP is not a game guide.

The {fact} tag was added because there is not a tag that I know for {scope} and if there was a third party souce that specifically linked all three items, I would not have seen the scope violations as reason to remove the material from the article. GundamsRus (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think it is not the scoop of the article, I would suggest removing the sentence, not adding an incorrect tag to it. It is verifiable and obvious that it is possible to use the unit with cheating devices, if you really want a citation, it would be funny that the result is a cheat code magazine or webpage, and the citation would be like Gameshark codes, 0x0A8947XX 009C Boss unit Psyco Gundam Mk-III replacing XX, XX being location of specific unit as listed above code 70~9A. The sentence could be changed to The Mark III is a boss unit, and not normally available to players. if you do not want something like that in the article. MythSearchertalk 07:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"the result is a cheat code magazine or webpage, 0x0A8947XX 009C Boss unit Psyco Gundam Mk-III replacing XX, XX " That would be a 'primary' source that could provide verifiabile material, however, most of Wikipedia's references should be to reliable 'secondary' sources WP:PSTS because relying only on primary sources tends to lead to Original Research. Find an author in a Relible Source who makes the connection between cheat codes and Psyco gundam Boss. GundamsRus (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would that be primary? Obviously the cheat code magazine is not a primary source, it is not by the game maker, it is a cheat code, it is not designed to be that way in game, the magazine only give a fact about the code could be modified to give certain results, it is not OR, it is simply a fact on how the game could be modified. The event is the game not being able to use a boss character, and the cheat code is used to counter that and make the unusable character usable. MythSearchertalk 14:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a tag that I should have used [off-topic?]. But back to your concerns...
I did not say that all use of primary sources is OR- but the greater the ratio of primary sources to secondary sources, the more likely that the material within the article is going to be OR - analysis, interpretation and opinion of the Wikipedia editor.
A primary source is one that supplies 'facts'/objects - (data from the US census bureau, for example)
A secondary source looks at those objects/facts and interprets/analyses them. These are the types of sources that should provide the majority of sourcing for Wikipedia articles. Simple analysis (The population of Podunk City declined from 250 in 1990 to 150 in 2000) is not considered a violation of OR, but most other statements that 'make meaing' from the 'facts' (The population of Podunk declined because ...) should be authored by and cited to reliable (those that have some type of editorial review i.e. not fansites, or wikis or personal blogs or self published material) independant/third-party sources (i.e. comments about the signifigance of a particular Anime cannot come direcly from the publisher of the Anime itself or an 'officially licensed' producer of the material.)
In this instance, what would be the best source for keeping the statement in the article would be something from say PC Gamer where the author talks about cheat codes allowing players to play the Boss Gundam Mk III.
Otherwise, the comment really has no place in the article. GundamsRus (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, if your concern is off topic or out of scope, then the sentence should probably be changed to The Mark III is a boss unit not available to players or something like that. It sounds sufficient to the article to me at least. However, also as I said, you really don't need to have a separate source here, since there is no analysing of facts. Source A(the game) provided the fact that the unit is a boss. Source B(the game) provided that the fact that the unit is not usable by players. Source C(the cheat code magazine) provided the fact that the boss unit could be used by entering the code. And the sentence states as A, B and C. and did not add any analytic solution such as A+B+C=D. Thus the article only showed 3 facts presented by 2 sources and should have enough citation as it is,(fact A and B is from the same source) unless you really want to have a citation like what I have displayed up there, I would stick with the off topic concern and suggest 'The Mark III is a boss unit not available to players as the solution. Only making sure you understand what the WP:OR policy is stating here. MythSearchertalk 16:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

<de-indent>The argument is entirely academic at this point, since upon rediscovering my copy of the game, I discover you can play as the damn thing after you beat the game. Guess the joke's on me with that one... anyway, I corrected the article accordingly, so I think we're done here. MalikCarr (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)