Talk:List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Samurai vs Musha[edit]

The show highlights the characters to be "Musha," not "Samurai." "Musha (武者)" is a shortened form of Bugeisha (武芸者). I tend to avoid all dubbed anime these days so I don't know if the show's English dub (mistakenly) says "Samurai" or not.

Anyways, I've checked the official (Japanese) website http://www.sunrise-inc.co.jp/sd_gundamforce/. (My Japanese isn't that good so please feel free to double-check the info.) Seven 03:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious characters.[edit]

Knight Unicorn Gundam is confirmably not part of the SDGF brand. The SDGF figures are NOT part of the "BB Senshi" toyline, but Knight Unicorn Gundam is. There are no reliable sources to confirm this however, though SDGF ended after it's second season and there's literally zero evidence of any manner of continuation, yet many of the dubious characters make reference to later characters and plot elements, including ones from Gundam Build Fighters. There might be references to SD Gundam Force Emaki Musharetsuden on this page as well(I haven't read it), but they do not belong here. Mattwo7 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Knight Gundams come from Lacroa, not Neotopia, though Lacroa isn't supposed to have any based on UC mecha. In SDGF, Neotopia and the Dark Axis have robots based on the UC timeline and the Command Gundam/G-Arms MSs, Lacroa has Knight Gundams based on Gundam Wing and Ark has Musha Gundams based on G Gundam. Knight Unicorn Gundam would be in direct conflict with this pattern, regardless if it came from Neotopia or Lacroa, as far as SDGF goes. As far as what I've found, Knight Unicorn Gundam hails from the original Lacroa, not the SDGF one anyway. Again, I haven't read Emaki Musharetsuden, but it's a "gaiden" story so it doesn't count anyway. Mattwo7 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, I'm no longer removing the fake information from this page due to Wikipedia's lackluster policies. It's not my job to make sure Wikipedia is credible, it's theirs. If they don't put any effort into validating themselves on low-importance articles, neither will I. If whoever is posting this fake information sees this, just know that people will have plenty of reason to doubt you, especially if they read this talk page. Mattwo7 (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]