Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam 00

Fanron

Fanron comes from where? The press release and Newtype Japan only say Setsuna F. Seiei. :/ The same for "Middle East". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.49.151.44 (talk • contribs)

Could we use a better picture of Gundam Exia?

Like this one? http://www.gundam00.net/ms/img/01.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.6.142 (talk • contribs)

I can see your point, but I'd be worried about opening this entry up to too much picture dressing. The current pic was uploaded mostly as a prilimary thing. It's a dynamic looking promo shot which provides a quick look at the Exia. I imagine once the show starts and details come the image will be removed.--HellCat86 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is if you can find another model of the Exia gundam.--Zeta26 08:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro/Outro Themes Now Added

Okay, the first theme has been added to the Opening/Ending themes. Please, do not delete them -- rather if you have some info. It'd be much appreciated if you would add some themes as well. And also you're welcome to add insert themes when the show gets underway as well.--Zeta26 08:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I altered it slightly since a table looks rather out of place here, and I removed L'Arc En Ciel from the Staff section since technically, they are not staff members. Hope you don't mind. Joppyhoppy 12:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Premiere

The offical page has numbers 9.29, and I also read somwewhere the same date, so I was wondering which is the correct date for the premiere...89.133.167.182 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reception

Is this really needed? It seems like it's just being used so random fans can add their opinions. The Destiny article once had similar and it became a nightmare of bickering and criticism.--HellCat86 22:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing the unsourced information and only allow sourced information in that section. --Silver Edge 02:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think even the Anime News Network's note is not really meaningful. The pilots of Gundam Wing only became an independent group as part of a plot twist in the the latter stages of the show, and Gundam Wing wasn't the only series that has such plot twist (X and Seed quickly comes to mind). One might as well comment that the Gundams in 00 have a red chin/mouth thingy. I see Gundam 00 bearing a much stronger resemblance to the unrelated series Full Metal Panic (private military organization with vastly superior technology with a peace-making objective). -Pan Sola 00:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The parallel connection ANN drew has nothing to do with "an independent group of Gundam pilots, challenging the world's powers for the sake of obtaining peace for all mankind". It was about "hyper-powerful Gundam units appearing at various locales to execute slightly-less-than-Dynasty-Warriors-level mayhem in synchronized phases of a paramilitary operation". -Pan Sola 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just a pointless excuse to express subjective and unfavourable opinions about the show. Anime News Network does not represent the viewers reception of Gundam 00 singlehandly. Kaioshin Sama 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, need I remind you that ANN qualifies as a notable, reliable reference when it comes to anime? Sooner or later, this article has got to include a reception section, if it is ever to make it past B-level. As a someone who has made Madlax the third (!) featured article about anime on the entire Wikipedia, I know first-hand that the reception section is the biggest pain in the ass to write. Therefore, while I certainly agree that no single source can cover the entirety of audience reaction to the show, I envisioned that section as a base for further expansion and expected fellow editors to extend it with other reviews and citations. Instead, I see it deleted with rationales ranging from "ANN is just a single source" to "I don't think it looks like Wing, I think it looks like Fumoffu", etc. (The latter would be original research, btw.) If you don't like an opinion and it's not sourced, delete it. If you don't like an opinion and it IS sourced, find a different one and add it to the section. That's the principle of neutral point of view. This is an encyclopedia, after all. I therefore request that the section is restored and expanded with further opinions.

EDITED: Oh, and I forgot to mention that deleting information outright is a violation of the official editing policy. --Koveras ^☭ 17:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the section and removed all unsourced text. --Silver Edge 03:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I'll keep an eye out for other reviews and reactions (it's just that I visit ANN far too often). ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 09:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter remains that the reception section is aligned favorably to only one opinion expressed by a sole website and most certainly does not reflect other opinions stated on several other blogs, both Japanese and English, as well as several sources. The series is merely ongoing, barely a month has passed since its release, therefore I don't see the real "need" of sticking to a so-called "opinion" based on watching a single episode of the series. A far more important statistic, at this moment of time, would be ratings gathered from the official sources, on how the series has been fairing, since that's the only neutral and stable opinion we have, therefore the flux here should be stability due to the series just having started. I therefore propose that we only note the television ratings for the series, as that might influence how the series is to be planned, rather than sticking to premature opinions based on watching a few minutes of the series. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 06:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have the ratings, add them to the section. If you have other opinions, add them. I don't see any reason to remove the old content until a new, better one is added. As soon as the said ratings are there (btw, I have never seen anything like that in an anime article yet), I won't object anymore. :) As for stability, don't expect an article about a TV series to be stable until its original run is over, it just won't work. --Koveras ^☭ 07:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with sources

IMPORTANT! I've found some impressive data on the 4 Gundams names, technical stats, and possible pictures of each; However, I can't seem to figure out how to cite sources on Wikipedia; can someone load these 4 Adresses as "sources"? They are consistant with the Normal format for Gundam data,and all list the same artist under "designer"(except for Exia), So I have reason to believe legitimacy. Exia: http://www.mahq.net/Mecha/gundam/00/gn-001.htm Dynames: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/00/gn-002.htm Kyrios: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/00/gn-003.htm Virtue: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/00/gn-005.htm

Agian, this is Important because I can't add the "gundams" section without sources being loaded; otherwise It'll be deleted shortly thereafter. Shotesu 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Factual Errors in the Show

I noticied that in the first episode everyone who was in the orbital elevator was floating. The only reason people in spaceships float is because they are in perpetual free-fall. The Earth's gravitational pull at that distance isn't much different from that on the surface. Should this be listed somewhere on the page? Bwabes 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that would count as original research. In addition, Gundam shows have people who are hired to make sure the science makes sense. There's a good chance there's something you've overlooked that makes the floating valid.--HellCat86 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not being given the orbital height of the space elevator (at least to my knowledge), we have no way of knowing whether or not the gravitational pull is accurate or inaccurate. Though, according to the Wiki article on Space Elevators, it's quite possible that it's orbiting that high.Egocentrism04 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If no external force is acting upon people within the elevator other than gravity, then the height of the "weightless" part of the elevator must be more than 3 times the diameter of the Earth when the orbit is over the equator (see geosynchronous orbit). It is definitely possible though, for them to modify external forces so people feel like they are in space or something, I doubt the elevator is that high.Cnfjti3 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your comment doesn't really make any sense. The entire point of a space elevator is to lift mass to at least geosynchronous orbit, so that important material can be launched into space without requiring propellant. If the top station of the elevator was below the point of being in geosynchronous orbit, then anything launched from it would fall back to Earth. Further, a space elevator CANNOT support its mass via structural integrity alone. All known materials are too weak to support a tower that high. Instead, space elevators are supported by having a mass distribution such that their center of mass is in geosynchronous orbit. The mass above this point is pulled away from the Earth by its own velocity, counteracting the mass that is pulled towards the Earth by gravity. 70.65.53.168 21:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, geosynchronous orbit is more than 3 times the diameter of the Earth, you think they will try to build something that high/huge? Seriously if they could do that, they wouldn't be worrying about energy. I thought the elevator was used to connect the solar energy generator to earth (if there was one).Cnfjti3 04:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Louise says in the third episode that the orbital elevators were built for the purpose of constructing colonies. Likewise, Tieria was able to bring the Virtue back into orbit by disguising it as parts for colony construction. Also, the ring of solar generation satellites that were constructed would not be able to survive anywhere BUT geosynchronous orbit. If the ring were constructed below geosynch orbit, then it would be continuously pulled inward, and the stress on the system would tear it apart. One way or another, it looks like the ring of satellites, as well as the orbital elevators, were built up to geosynchronous orbit. The Virtue's capsule being weightless when it is first jettisoned from the top of the elevator proves this. The lack of gravity is an indication of the location of the satellites/top stations. 68.148.224.47 05:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that today, in 2007, we already have hundreds of satellites placed in geosynchronous orbit, and we are already beginning primitive investigations into how to construct space elevators which extend well beyond geosynchronous orbit. Conventional designs call for starting with a very thin, almost microscopic cable, which would then be reinforced by climbers which add small amounts of material each time they go up. In this manner, it is technically feasible to construct an elevator built around a strong, large central cable, without having to fly that much mass into space directly. If space elevators are in fact feasible, we could probably start building them within the century. In 2307, it should be a piece of cake. Check the appropriate Wikipedia pages for more information. 68.148.224.47 05:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well according to the 5th episode, it seems the place where people gathers on the space elevator isn't in geosynchronous orbit, it just seems to be way too large for such a thing to be built that high around the world. About the stress of weight upon itself, the elevators used to bring people up to geosynchronous orbit would not survive the gravitational pull if they were built all the way into the rings. We might have hundreds of satellites already in orbit over the equator, but it will take A LOT more than a few hundred for an entire ring to be built, you'd have to take out a small chunk of earth for it to be built. The amount of energy used to bring materials from the surface of the earth to a platform that high could be used for all sorts of more productive things. Most spacecrafts would have to be built on earth and lifted into the ring through an elevator anyways, so they are not exactly saving a lot of energy when they release things into space. Cnfjti3 04:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, they don't need to save energy, as the lack of fossil fuels means they don't have much of an alternative (how else to get the energy back to Earth?) and the whole elevator is powered by the giant generator rings anyway. But what i wonder is how much more effective the space based solar panels are compared to surface based ones in order to warrant using space elevators (the lack of any solar panels in the Middle East of all places notwithstanding). Ciobanica (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

incorrect, the main station is at the geosync. in the OO version, they have a midway stopping point(compare it to the 1st ep, you can see it is alot smaller) at LEO which just hang in the middle of the elevator line. the idea is the tourist only want to go the space, there is no need for them to go all the way to the main station which was build there to provide the center of mass of the elevator. technically the elevator line cannot be straight, it is slightly bend like a bow due to drag. also it is cheap to move thing futher up in space with space tug, it is only expensive getting them into space. lanuching to geosync is expensive now because you have to lanuch a 'space tug' with every rocket. but for a really large scale space program, there will be reusable space tug waiting in the orbit, you then just need to refuel it. and ion engine are more effective per ton of fuel; it can also take advantage of solar power. Akinkhoo (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

personally, i don't believe in the space elevator concept. it is just a big target for terrorist as show in the anime. there is also alot of issue with drag correction and that is gonna bump up the cost too. it is more logical and faster to gather material from space. the space elevator is just a white elephant like the space shuttle, by the time you finish it; your rival could have finish their space colony and mining centers for basically the SAME PRICE! they can then expand their dominance by reclaiming more asteriod since they would have the infrastruture. why is everyone going to the moon instead of researching elevator? it is obvious u are gonna have colonies 1st, and with colonies, the elevators could be contructed cheaply to improve trade (rather then build colony). Akinkhoo (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gundam 00 Nations and Factions

Would it make sense that we create an article about the factions in Gundam 00? The other Gundam factions page seems to suffer from a lot of problems, but should we create one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.81.176 (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just add brief desriptions to the character list, sort of what I did with Azadistan? Just a suggestion, though. :) --Koveras ^☭ 09:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to support it, but let's wait for later info first. Ominae 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wana as an insert song

A recent edit lists the song as being used as an insert song. I'm not sure I'd agree. The slow version is used in the final minutes of 2 episodes so far right before the actual ED. SEED and Destiny used to do similar, with either a slow build up playing over the final minutes or for more dramatic cliffhangers just leaping into the ED unannounced.--HellCat86 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I do not think Wana should be listed as an IS, it is an ending theme, after all.{User:lpjz290|lpjz290]]

Staff

I appreciate your efforts, Fallacies, but is an enormous table like that really necessary? ^^; I mean, the who list is on the ANN page already and it is linked at the bottom of the page... --Koveras ^☭ 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it was there anyways. I just reformatted it and added some stuff.
Fallacies (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've noticed it in all Gundam articles that they tend to replace decent character sections with list of voice actors and staff names... An inherited flaw, perhaps? :) --Koveras ^☭ 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have a character's section that's not just a VA list, so things are good, I think.
Fallacies (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me? ^^ What else is in the character section except the names of the characters and their respective seiyus? ;) My point is that a list of names has very little encyclopedic notability (especially if it's already available on other websites). :) --Koveras ^☭ 12:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The characters section.
Fallacies (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't get it. ^^ But that's not a "section" in the way MediaWiki uses the term. That's a separate article containing a list of characters. :) By "character section" I meant something along the lines of featured articles (Excel Saga, Lain, Madlax): a piece of prose briefly outlining the main cast and their relationships. Admittedly, Gundams tend to have enormous casts because people tend to die off easily and secondary characters get a lot of characterization, as well, but it's still possible to pack them all into prose IMO. --Koveras ^☭ 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot

I have altered the term "World Economy Union" to "Global Economic Union." This should be further editted if an official translation appears. It appears on the Japanese wiki as "Union of Solar Energy and Free Nations," which might or might not be officially sourced. It seems to be in the same spirit as "ZAFT." Also, a previous edit modified the fansub-based "Human Reform/Reformed League" to a more communistic-themed "People's Revolutionary Alliance." I believe this to be appropriate, because even though "reform league" is a literal translation, "People's Revolutionary" compares better with "World Socialist Revolution" (世界社会主義革命) and the Chinese "People's Liberation Army" (人民解放軍). -- Fallacies 05:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Joppyhoppy has reversed the modifications I previously submitted to the "Human Reform League's" name translation, on the justification of insufficient backing in canon for a communistic-themed name. Though I agree, I would note that the fansub-based "Human Reform/Reformed League/Alliance" has similarly little justification and is less sensitive to the usage in Japanese. The meaning of "Human Reform" is, if unrelated to communistic concepts, also unclear in English. Further information required from canon. -- Fallacies 10:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This preview clip for Gundam 00 do use "Union of Solar Energy and Free Nations" (00:34) and "Human Reform League" (1:02). However, in the beginning of episode 2 the narrator also unmistakably said "世界経済連合" (which literally translates to World/Global Economic/Economy Union). It may be there's a name change (back in GSD, the Japanese official homepage used to name Strike Freedom as Super Freedom, and Infinite Justice as Knight Justice, many weeks before they actually appeared in the show) for the Union between initial preview and when it started airing, or perhaps the English official fullname of the Union is supposed to not literally match up with that of the Japanese fullname. Anyways, my initial choice for "World Economy Union" was to draw a parallel structure with "World Trade Organization". I also want to point out a huge difference between "人類" (Human/Mankind) vs "人民" (the People). The Japanese/Chinese translation for communist stuff always use 人民 and not 人類. I also believe the corresponding term for "Global" would've been "全球" (lit. "Whole Ball" where the ball is a reference to the planet Earth the "Earth Ball" 地球). -Pan Sola 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how the preview clip is the only source for *official* English translations so far, I see no reason to not use those translations and to use the fansubbers' wordings. I am reverting back to them until someone can show that they are officially wrong.Darkhunger 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we already have a Nations and Factions page, is it ok to simply and link there instead of having a giant spew of information on the countries?
Fallacies (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking along those lines... the plot section goes over the country's and their relationships rather than a brief summary of the plot, also, Celestial being was formed well before the orbital elevators were erected. Goodie01 (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

World Map

Please refer to this image before deciding to edit the member states of the 3 powers:
http://img196.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=99080_1194386518964_122_380lo.jpg

Note that the map is approximate, and that certain unmarked locations are visibly marked in the actual episode 2, from which the image was derived.
Fallacies (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We are at war with Eastasia: We have always been at war with Eastasia. Identity0 (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?lpjz290

What does 00 mean?

i was wondering what the 00 ment and how you might say it, for example is it just zero zero? or does it mean something else? picklefishman Dec. 2, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 05:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In Japanese, it's pronounced Double-Oh. If there's a reason for the name, it's likely noted in production materials I haven't seen.
Fallacies 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In English, it should be pronounced as Double-Oh too. If you like to know, there's actually a Gundam named "GN-0000 Gundam 00", though that doesn't explain precisely what "00" mean.Kazenorin (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler - The thing about "Gundam 00" is that it is the name of the Gundam that will change the world. It kind of tells you in the final episode of Season 1. Jeffrey G. Conflict 2552 Producer 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidcoast (talk • contribs)

That does not answer the question of what 00 means.. Well I wonder why it's pronounced Double-Oh while the title has double zeroes. Although it's true Double-Oh sounds better. --staka (T ・C) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The impression I got was that while Gundam 0 was the model for the all Gundams, Gundam 00 would be the model for all the next-generation gundams - an entirely new line. 163.187.160.203 (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Gundam 00 may be using two zeros, so many would say it should be read as Double-Zero, but if Double-Oh is how the Japanese want the title to be read, the let it be so.lpjz290 —Preceding undated comment added 08:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

It also could be interpreted as the symbol of infinity. And you know, those two circles the Gundam 'drawned' in space during battles? Being able to quantitize? Sorta related to infinity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.38.166 (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

00F and Manga

I think this section should be changed. I've been buying Gundam Ace for the last year or so and really, it isn't telling the story of 00. Alot of the main cast appear in important roles and it is occuring close to the anime story but I wouldn't call it an adaptation. The only real 00 manga adaptation running is the one in Kero Kero Ace.--HellCat86 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit at will, I suppose. If somebody has a problem with your opinion, they'll respond by modifying or reverting it.

Fallacies (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree some mention of the manga ( Gundam OOF , V and P) should at least be mentioned69.86.55.108 (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're stupid.. that section was already in the article but someone moved it. How stupid are you to not find it.. see it here, List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 media. --staka (T ・C) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So there's no mention of PLANTs or ZAFT (from Gundam Seed) in Gundam 00?

Just curious..is it acknowledged in the Gundam 00 series or is it set on a completely different setting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.14.83.20 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. Gundam 00 is set on a completely different universe (Anno Domini (AD) timeline) compared to Gundam SEED (Cosmic Era (CE) timeline). E Wing (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gundam 00 is set in our own timeline in the near future (real earth) as opposed to a fictional timeline which is why it reflects current social events. --mahq (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get technical about it, they are all in the same timeline according to Turn A, just taking place at various different technological resurgencies. It's simply that OO takes place the closest to our current day and age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.121.210 (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I know Wiki is not a forum but every time I read this page the technically it's all the same universe comment annoys me. Turn A definately suggests that all Gundams BEFORE SEED are united. But it was also made before SEED. So anything after Turn A is not included in its timeline relation. It's even shown that way in that image from the Turn A page from some video game or something.

Also 00 has vaguely turned into a remake of Zeta with sprinkles of the Cosmic Era and Wing. So technically you could say that it has its basis off previous Gundams like SEED And S Destiny did.69.207.32.133 (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It may have some slight resemblance to the other series, but Gundam 00 is, after all, a different series by itself. So i don't think that saying this is series is based off other series is appropriate.lpjz290 —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

Characters section

Anyone in favor of a section rewrite (condensation into several paragraphs of information; removal of the numerous subsections) here? This section seems to be a little messy, with fragmented info here and there. In fact, the sentences make little to no sense to me at times. The Slimy One 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Japanese pronounciation

I´m generally miffed that everyone keeps adding fault japanese mispronounciation. Really: it´s just dumb in my opinion and serves no purpouse. Why do you keep doing this? I mean what point is there that a reader needs to know that "Soresutaru Biiingu" is the way the japanese mispronounce it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.188.192.20 (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

this is pointless. The Japanese have their way of pronouncing those words, and it is only fair that non-English speaking people get to see this and they will be able to see how the name is read. Just ignore the 'mispronounciation' if you do not want to see it. It serves a purpose for the others.lpjz290 —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

The japanese are using the katakana system to pronounce english words instead of really using english pronunciation. Therefore it is useful for those people who wanna know why and how japanese pronounce english words.--58.26.136.5 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Arrows or A-laws?

When I was watching the anime series the characters call them Arrows, but in this refered to them as A-laws. What are they called, Arrows or A-laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.194.124 (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Officially, it's A-Laws, as seen on GN-XIII's boxart. The Slimy One 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that in dialogue it does sound like the VAs are doing their best to say 'Arrows', plus we have those badges which seem to also suggest that's the name. However, as said all English official writings currently give the name as A-Laws. This might be a blooper but right now it's all we have to go on until BEI officially translate season 2--HellCat86 (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Setsuna's real name

From the new OP single, Setuna's real name is Soran Ebrahim in the character card. (75.157.130.116 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

Season 2 Opening

Either I'm not seeing it or its not there, but should there be something about the opening at the beginning of the episode that changes in about mid-season 2? What I'm saying is that in another anime, Gurren Laggan, there's like a seven year skip, so the opening changes. But during mid-season 2, there is no "skip". And also the new opening is really different from the other one. But then again this might be a different one or something because I'm watching the episodes (since season two isn't going to be on SciFi, at least not for a while) on different sites, mainly MegaVideo and others. Searching for an Answer or Opinion, WM2 20:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't watch many animes do you? Animes can change their opening for no reason just because they feel like it or they got bored with the old one. It doesn't neccessary have anything to do with a timeskip. --203.82.91.34 (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gundam title

the picture showing the title of mobile suit gundam 00 is in Japanese, yet in the sci-fi channel they already showed the title in english. Dont you think we should change the picture in the main article? just saying.Haseo445 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've switched it out with a DVD cover. Title screens don't make for good infobox illustrations as they don't convey anything about the series and differ from language to language. A cover or promotional image illustrating the main characters and/or artistic design of the series is always much better. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but you're missing the point though...this is the English Wikipedia, so why don't we get an English title? Mobile suit gundam 00 has been licensed for north America so why not put the English one though? .Haseo445 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1) The image of the Japanese DVD cover was already available, so it make sense to use it instead of upload a variant. We would also have a hard time justifying both covers. 2) The project has no real preference for language, though some suggest that Japanese covers should be preferred. --Farix (Talk) 02:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

i know that it was available, but that doesn't mean thats only one we should use. it wouldnt be that hard to justify, and you know it. The Wikipedia itself is in english preference so its better to use the english title logo or the english DVD. its not that big of a deal, we can easily do that. its more suitable to use that one than the japanese one.

and as for wikipedia, i find it strane for someone to prefer a japanes title within english article. point is, english article should have english DVD covercase. i can understand some of these didnt come out of america giving obligatoin to not change it, but theres an english one out already and theres no trouble putting it here.Haseo445 (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also one cover will be deleted as a near duplicate of the other. So there is no point in having both covers. If we really want to get anal about it and avoid a systemic bias, we would insists that only first published cover be included in the infobox, which will always be the Japanese cover. Insisting on English covers, however, encourages a systemic bias. Just like we don't insists on only English sources, we don't insist on only English covers. --Farix (Talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

+1 systemic bias is wrong even it's for an not memorable issue like this one. Any non-craps with dully completed Fair use rational DVD covers will do. The choice of the cover is left to the courtesy of first one to make the effort put it properly in the article. In that case it's probably an amateur of Gundam who put the cover asap along with the Japanese DVD release. To go further i do know one manga article which infobox image cover isn't either Japanese nor English and yet no one yelled because of that. --KrebMarkt 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, a second cover would be redundant and probably get deleted anyway. The current image is fine and there's no real reason to change it. Edward321 (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

how is it systemic bias? our Japanese sources get translated, so why don't we translate the Japanese cover by adding the English one?. also the manga of mobile suit 00 doesn't have an English version so there's no point trying to look for one, poor example there. I'm not saying keep both covers, i mean remove the Japanese one and put the English one. I mean what if someone tries to find this DVD but couldn't find it because he only remembered it as having Japanese characters and thought the English one was a different series? It has happened to many of my friends.

I know you can use a Japanese one, but since there's an English one, why not place it there?its a benefit not an burden. its nothing wrong. it doesn't encourage systemic bias. DO we honestly know if the japanese cover and english cover look the same anyways? they could look different than just the logo aswell which could be another reason why we should change itHaseo445 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

i was just to talk about the same thing....Is it so hard to change it back to the english one? i read systemic bias but half of it doesn't make sense to me. It would be helping more of the readers than the article itself if you placed an English cover. Because sometimes they differ and we wont be able to differentiate from them.

i could understand if there was no English version yet.Linder1990 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't help when you start dragging out a sockpuppets to support your arguments. But your argument has no merit. We are not here to sell the series or to help people shop. We are here to inform them about a notable anime series and its production and development. And though WP:ANIME is not as strict as WP:BOOK — they insist on the first or oldest available published cover — we still are not going to switch images when a good illustrative image is already in place. --Farix (Talk) 22:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as i know there is something called alphabet using that something called alphabet i'm sure you can find the Gundam 00 dvd regardless the form and the appearance of the DVD. To go further in your flawed argumentation. Gundam 00 is released into multiple DVD volume so should we line up every English DVD covers of this series so you will be able to recognize and differentiate them ? That not all what should we do when they will release their DVD box sets edition should replace the cover again to keep up with the latest cover ?

Your inability to understand the meaning of the WP:BIAS is saddening but i will give you an personalized summary the English Wikipedia isn't something from and for Americans exclusively. For non-US people not having an US cover isn't a problem. --KrebMarkt 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

@KrebMarkt: Let's not bite the new user here, please.

@Haseo445&Linder1990: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Additionally, under WP:FAIRUSE, one image is plenty. I can assure you that another image would easily be deleted as another free-use alternative is already up. Further, consensus stands that the Japanese cover should be used first and foremost for infobox images, so I see no reason this should be changed. Additionally, a "English cover helps readers" argument doesn't fly at all. As Farix said, Wikipedia is not here to sell books; we are here to inform. Multiple images clearly break WP:FAIRUSE and consensus stands that the Japanese image should not be replaced, so this debate is pretty much moot. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And to add another nail to the coffin, there is no English DVD cover. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

@NocturneNoir Sorry. I have my flaws, one is that i can't stand WP:BIAS. --KrebMarkt 08:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

you guys seem pretty hard edge for something that can easily be done and no one would complain about it. i get one image is plenty but didnt haseo445 said that you can remove the first cover and replace it with english one???

anyways if both covers look completely different then yes, i believe it would be nice to change it. i dont tihnk it was mean to search for buying it, i think it was recognizing it somewhere else instead of here. also the anime and manga articles are basically short information expecting you to buy them to get full detail so why not? not my problem, i was just wondering if you guys could change it, nothing bad about it. Japanese DVD case on English article sounds like a broken to me.Linder1990 (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It can't be done at this time, per the comments above. But even when it could be done, it won't be as there is no benefit content wise. Nothing is broken by using a cover from the original language. And insisting on using English covers for non-English series, books, comics, and movies is a manifestation of systemic bias --Farix (Talk) 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

well i know the movie and the book will come out in English and the comic is already out in English. Still i know its in japanese, but i dont know japanese and sometimes english covers differ from japanese. so when the time comes at least consider it.Linder1990 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether the dvd cover picture uses Japanese or English. USA may be english-speaking, and Wikipedia may be predominantly English, but still many people can recognize the Japanese Gundam 00 and say 'oh this is gundam 00'. so it really not sensible to change something when it's obviously working. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. by the way, i'm Singaporean. I don't know Japanese, but I can still recognize the Japanese logo anyway.lpjz290 —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

I agree with not changing it. System bias will really occur. It might be the title picture today, but tomorrow it will be all the contents, names, and such. Ask yourselves a question. Are we doing a wiki about Gundam 00 or just the English version of Gundam 00? What about other animes where the japanese names differs from the english version? Should we just remove the japanese names then? We'll just put them side by side you say? That's possible for the names but the title picture is limited to one. To be respectful of the show's origins, the Japanese title should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.26.136.5 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode 13.5

One of the links took me to the AnimeFart website. I noticed that there was an episode 13.5 between episode 13 and 14 (duh). It was in all Japanese so I didn't take the time to go through the whole video. Does anyone have some kind of explanation? Please & Thank You, WM2 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a recap episode ? --KrebMarkt 08:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode 13.5 is more like an interview episode. In this episode, the seiyus are interviewed and asked questions about the show itself or their experiences while doing the show. --lpjz290 —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. I didn't really watch the whole thing, but it looked like an interview to me. Sincerely, WM2 20:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gundam 00 movie

a commercial in the last episode of season 2 shows the planet Jupiter and mention that they are developing a Gundam 00 movie in 2010. SilentmanX (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger from Mobile Suit Gundam 00: Gundam Meisters

I have merged the above article into this one, however, I would urge those with a knowledge and interest to clean it up, as my merger may well be a little on the cruder and sloppier side. Apologies for any unnecessary work I've created!! HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The plan

I notice that currently the plot for season 2 states that the plan called for A-Laws force to unite humanity after Celestial Being's initial defeat. Unless an official source confirms that I think we should remove it. A-Laws being part of the plan is only ever stated by Ribbons and his followers, who are known to be rogue elements. When Tieria discusses the plan in episode 24, he only mentions that Celestial Being's interventions were meant to unite humanity against a common enemy. It would seem clear that A-Laws is Ribbons being impatient and using violence to stronghand his interepretation of the plan.--HellCat86 (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

the first and third volume's DVD gundam 00 first week selling?

the source (aeug.blogspot.com) says - first volume is 22,847 copies not 42,847 copies - third volume is 25,135 copies not 55,135 copies401team (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are unreliable sources, unless it is by a published expert, and can't be used to support any statements. Oricon's sells rankings should be referenced directly or through another reliable source, such as ANN. --Farix (Talk) 12:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sci Fi channel

Just a general notice to not change any references to the Sci Fi channel prier to the July 7, 2009 rebranding. This is do to remain factually accurate as the channel was called the Sci Fi channel until July 7, 2009 when it was rebranded as Syfy. Any content related to the post-rebranding period should, naturally, use the new name. --Farix (Talk) 21:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Movie description

the movie description says that there are four lights surrounding Jupiter plus one in the very center but i don't see one and i don't see any reference to it either. So i'll edit it to say only for lights —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the very first light shown in the preview and list slightly off-center to the upper left of the other four lights when the camera zooms out for the final shot. --Farix (Talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

nope, dont see it....we should just state the obvious, i saw three youtube videos showing nothing and i even have it recorded...i dont see no 5th one. i suggest we leave it to 4 until it's more easier to see.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actaully i looked at the picture and it shows a little white spot on Jupiter but that inst a light from a gundam or anything.....Again, there are only four, it should be easier to see if you can see it, but i just think it's your mind playing tricks. there is no fifth light. Bread Ninja (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, 1280X720 pic. I see clearly the light in the middle upper right(precisely at 725-294 on the x-y axis system in counting upper left hand corner as 0-0). —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 18:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the video itself in 1280x720 scale and the light is clearly present. You can identify all five of them as they all have diffraction spikes to differentiate them form the background. The YouTube video is scaled down and probably a low quality encoding, so things may be blurry. --Farix (Talk) 16:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The YouTube video does blur out the center light quite a bit, but I can tell it's there and is of the same color as the other four. (Isn't that what is said in the article? Nothing is mentioned about it being a Gundam.) The diffraction spikes in Myth's photo also confirms the fifth light in my opinion. Arsonal (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The fifth light is very clearly there in the image provided above (as well as in the video itself). There are five lights, not four. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple solution: rephrase to Within a few seconds of the video shot, it showed Jupiter surrounded by multiple green lights and the phrase "The Childhood of Humankind Ends". That extra "plus another one at the center" clause is rather awkward anyways.--Remurmur (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing. Both sides win and it means technically we aren't presenting incorrect information--HellCat86 (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence could be changed, but I don't see why we should compromise with people who does not try to find clearer sources but instead insist on using a blurred copyright violation material to support the edit. Although it might be good faith, the action is hardly justifiable. BTW, the image above was searched and obtained in the first google result, I did not take any side(And I have not counted the number of lights) before the search. I only tried to find the correct resolution image(HD) and I got the correct result that anyone can see as common sense. There is no win-win but only correct and incorrect here. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 14:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I can't see the fifth light. I see the 4 around Jupiter but what everyone is claiming is a final one just looks like detail to me. It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but then if I honestly can't see it I can't say 'Five is correct'. The idea to make the actual article note a bit more ambigious resolves that perfectly. The only other solution is to find an official 00 reference source which says how many lights are at the end.--HellCat86 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythsearcher is right. Even though I have somewhat poor vision, the fifth light is quite easy to see in his pic. Jtrainor (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am up for a sentence structure change "it showed Jupiter surrounded by four green lights plus another one at the center and the phrase " is very awkward and as far as I see it, it is poorly written. I say we change it to "it showed Jupiter surrounded by five green lights and the phrase" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZgokE (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Krugis Republic" or "Kurdish Republic"?

In the "Story and Settings - First Season" section, it says that the character Setsuna "...grew up in the war-torn Krugis Republic." However, later, in the characters section, Setsuna is said to have been "...a child soldier in the war-torn Kurdish Republic." As far as I can tell, the official term is "Krugis Republic". Is there any official source for the "Kurdish Republic" interpretation? When I listened to the Japanese dialog, I couldn't here it, but I don't claim to be an expert. Either way, shouldn't the terms be consistent? I'd make the edit, but that feels presumtious, being a new user and all. Rubyfulcrum (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Be bold, I would support your edit. You can source it from the official site. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It was originally the Kurdish Republic, the Kurgis thing only started showing up later, when the official translation got underway. But as it's official the article should use it, with maybe some mention of the change. Ciobanica (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Popularity

While critically acclaimed, the first season of Gundam 00 experienced lower average ratings than its predecessors Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. Over its 25 episode run, it averaged a rating of 4.85% and peaked at 6.1%. On a more positive note, Gundam 00's average rating was higher than the other previous Gundam shows set in alternative universes such as Gundam Wing (which averaged 4.3%) and G Gundam (which averaged 4.1%)

This section is self-contradictory, as it neglects the fact that Gundam SEED is itself set in an alternate universe from the main Universal Century continuity.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand how it is self-contradictory. The article never suggests that it is part of the Cosmic Era, however it is written in a way for this interpretation to be made. However, the information from this source is actually from a blog. And this blog's sources have bad links. In addition, these are japanese ratings, and that definitely should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZgokE (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting the era of the anime show "Gundam 00"

I changed the end of the opening sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the summary description of Gundam 00 on it's Wikipedia page by changing the show 's time line description from Anno Domini era to the Common Era. I also did this in the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the subheading "First season" of the heading "Story and settings" on the Wikipedia page of Gundam 00 by changing AD to CE. I provided links for each of the changes. I feel these changes would be welcomed as Anno Domini is a religious description of the era in which we are living, while Common Era is a secular description of it. These changes would leave those who aren't christian more at ease by not offending them through avoiding unnecessary use of anything religious. After all, this is a secular website. This is my first time editing Wikipedia, so please forgive my ignorance. I would like to change the page back to the way I had previously edited it, but a conservative christian fundamentalist edited my previous edit and probably will do so again in the future if I edit it again. I just don't want people to feel bombarded by religion.--GrandMasterDr.Enigma^Talk 21:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)\

Besides atheists that grew up in Christian majority countries who exactly wouldn't be offended by using the Christian calendar as the one a common era for all the planet is based on?! Ciobanica (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee stated that when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason. Religion is not a substantial reason to change from use of AD to CE. The source material itself uses the Anno Domini notation as seen on GundamOfficial.com. But also, the use of CE in the Gundam franchise refers to an entirely different timeline. And finally, please refrain form making personal attacks against other editors. This will only result in your block from editing. —Farix (t | c) 02:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A "conservative christian fundamentalist" didn't edit anything. An editor who actually is familiar with series undid your imporper edits to restore the article to the actual factual titles. We use what the official series uses, which doesn't have anything to do with religion at all, but the time era names used by Gundam itself. Your changes were inappropriate at all. No one is being "bombarded by religion" or anything else. It is an anime/manga franchise, not a religious work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Making this change and keeping it permanent for the sake of religious neutrality is a substantial, legitimate, and style-independent reason because we are talking about a non-religious website and a non-religious anime. Common era, and Anno Domini both refer to the non-fictional era in which people live. The Cosmic Era(CE) is the fictional timeline of the anime television series Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and its spinoff projects. I would like someone who isn't the same conservative christian fundamentalist to provide me with a real reason opposed to a fatuous one that promotes intolerance of other religions. This would by no means fundamentally alter the slightest modicum of anything related to the show. Anyone with enough sense to research things would know that. I am by no means singling out any religion. It's only fair to the viewer of the Gundam 00 Wikipedia page that the show's description use the secular synonym purely for the sake of not offending people who aren't christians for reasons of religious neutrality and non-discrimination.--GrandMasterDr.Enigma^Talk 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agian, it has nothing to do with "religious neutrality" nor is your edit legitimate. The series very specifically refer to two different time lines, Common Era and Anno Domini. Nor will your continued personal attacks against TheFarix (and presumably me) be tolerated. No one here is a fundamentalist and the reasons given are real ones. It does significantly change the meaning of the articles and the one fairness to the viewer comes from actually presenting factual information, not falsely changing content to invalid titles for made up reasons. If someone is offended by the series using the terms, they need to take it up with the creator. Wikipedia is not censored and we will not falsely change the series' given terms. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, are you going to characterize anyone who disagrees with you a "conservative christian fundamentalist". Because if so, you not going to keep your editing privileges for long as it violates WP:NPA as an ad hominem. You've already been warned, so the next one will go strait to WP:ANI. But as has already been stated twice now, we are going to use the style used by the work itself. There is no room for debate on this. —Farix (t | c) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not singling out anyone who holds different points of view as being conservative christian fundamentalists, but I must say that your personal description of yourself does strongly imply that if in fact you are aware of what claims you are making about yourself. I am NOT discriminating against anyone's religious or political point of view, but simply know that people visiting the Wikipedia page of Gundam 00 would have less provocation to be offended if the page promotes a neutral point of view. It would be so quick, so easy, and promote far more happiness than it would misery and suffering, to just allow this minor change. We are all entitled to our own beliefs, regardless of the rigors of critical analysis and evidence.--GrandMasterDr.Enigma^Talk 00:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You being? There is nothing provactive about this page, except apparently to you. The page is promoting a neutral view. Again, these are the specific terms used within the series. It doesn't have anything to with anyone's personal beliefs. If it bothers you, honestly, just stop looking at the page. Wikipedia is a neutral site, and as such will not censor information about this topic purely because you are somehow bothered by it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop your irrational argument, Grandmaster, the series used Anno Domini and we will use it, THIS IS NEUTRALITY. Changing it according to somebodies oppinion is not neutral, it introduces personal opinion into the article and introduces error since the official term is NOT Common Era. You can for the sake of it think of it as another fictional timeline name with no relevance with the real world like all other Gundam series if you are so anti-christianism and so remotely detached from the real world which is still dominatingly using the term whether you admit it or not or whether you go change all instance of it in wikipedia or not, but we stay with the facts and you have no say about the policy to stay with sourced facts and you are only causing trouble here. Only irrationally offensive parties go around and changing facts, those who stick with the facts and only the facts and accept all facts are always those that are rational. The series used Anno Domini, this is a fact and no sources indicated it used Common Era or any other terms and no sources suggested it is offensive to anyone, and even if there is any, it still does not change the fact that the series used AD not CE. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 05:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you are accusing the director(who had no known religion) who adopted the AD timeline to be a Conservative Christian Fundamentalist. Good try. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your excuse, calling another editor a "conservative christian fundamentalist" has nothing to do with the AD/CE debate. My politics and religion have nothing to do with this discussion. It is merely an attempt at an ad hominem, which is a form of personal attack. Also, AD and CE are both perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia as established by the Manual of Style at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year numbering systems which specifically states that editors are not to change form one style to anther. Thirdly, the arbitration case I linked to earlier dealt specifically with a group of editors who were edit waring over BC/AD and BCE/CE on a number of article. The editors switching to BCE/CE were using the exact same argument, but the arbitration committee slapped them down along with the other parties involved in the edit war. That is a clear indication that religion is not a substantial reason to make a change. And finally, anyone who is offended by the use of BC/AD is clearly looking for something to be upset about. This group is an extreme minority of anti-Christians that we should simply ignore, just like we ignore extremist viewpoints in other subject areas. —Farix (t | c) 12:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AD and CE mean the EXACT SAME THING unless we are referring to the Cosmic Era. This is a fact and is beyond doubt. I am merely advocating a religious-neutral terminology of a real era on a non-religious webpage of a non-religious website. I have made no statements indicative of any harsh feelings toward any groups or any feelings of mine other than a desire for neutral points of view on Wikipedia. I have used no logical fallacies other than some wishful thinking overestimating the brainpower of some fellow mammals and I have nothing more to say about this matter.--GrandMasterDr.Enigma^Talk 01:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are laboring under a misconception. Anno Domini (AD) and Common Era (CE) as used in the Gundam franchise - and in this article - have nothing to do with either Anno Domini or Common Era; that is, they do not correspond with real time periods. The Gundam franchise is divided into a number (seven to ten or so, I'm not sure of an exact count) of time lines or continuities; it just happens that two of these time lines are referred to with the names "Anno Domini" and "Common Era". Unlike the real time line terms, where the only difference is in religious connotations, the Gundam time lines differ completely - in characters, factions, and events - and changing the terminology thus completely changes the meaning of the prose. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we stay factual. This is a fictional universe not our "real" universe. We stay with this universe given calendar so it's (AD). --KrebMarkt 08:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are the one that most of us would think is underestimating the brainpower of others and possibly overestimating your own by 1) deliberately introducing factual error in the name of religion; 2) failed to understand the difference between a fictional timeline and a real one; 3) deliberately said offensive words to refer to others no matter how you try to disguise it in pretty words and think that others cannot get the meaning of your personal attack in it; 4) tried to factor you innocence somewhere other than this page(i.e. you own user page); 5) failed to understand what NPOV means in all senses that any reasonable and educated person would understand if NOT under the influence of a particular biased view.

NPOV means that we stick to the facts the sources have stated, not try to censor a particular term just because it may offend others. You are condemning your own words up there by stating others as Conservative Christian Fundamentalist, since you are indicating that you believed these people would be offended by the change and you point is that if anyone might be offended, we should be careful and not use the term. I am sorry and you are contradictory to your own believe and showed a very clear sign that you are not Neutral in anyway. You are either being too careful but illogical to a point of fallacy since your argument is not neutral at all, or simply overlooked this fact, if we assumed good faith; or you are showing a high tendency of being anti-christianism just for the sake of it and insisted on introducing a term that take the Christian part away from anywhere you can find and disguise it as an NPOV act, or you are assuming bad faith, if we assumed bad faith. By no means I am indicating I, or anyone of us here are assuming bad faith, but it is fairly obvious and is a reasonable doubt here. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not laboring under a misconception. I am very aware of this anime being purely fictional. I have found no evidence for any official Gundam anime adopting the Common Era timeline. If someone can provide official evidence of Common Era, and not Cosmic Era usage being associated with any Gundam series, which everyone seems to have carefully avoided to mention, then I'll quit. If no Gundam series has used Common Era or plans to in the future then it's only reasonable to change the era to Common Era. Instead you have resorted to putting words in my mouth while ascribing qualities to me resembling the very thing I am fighting against. I have never advocated these revisions on the basis of "If anyone might be offended", but purely on the principle of neutrality and non-discrimination, not anti-religion. I'm a proud gay-atheist-liberal-weight-lifting-musician-nerd, not a proselytizer. I'm not a crazy hate monger, nor do I have a valid reason to be for minority groups that are already killing themselves en masse while being destroyed by inventions of mass communication, education, and democracies. I am not interested in burning any books, however foul they may be, but will always stand against nonsensical information applied in a totally inappropriate context, which this almost certainly is, and any forms of tyranny.--GrandMasterDr.Enigma^Talk 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Entirely irrelevant. The series uses AD to denote the timeline of the story. That is how the timeline will be denoted on Wikipedia as we cannot change things as they are already described or depicted in the work itself. Also, it is perfectly acceptable to use AD and BC on Wikipedia for dates. And the Manual of Style also instructs that we are not to switch between Anno Domini and Common Era, but whatever one is used for should stay unless there is substantial reason for the change and a consensus for the change. Your arguments for a change to CE have all been based on a religious argument, which is not not considered an substantial reason in accordance with a standing arbitration ruling. Your argument for the change also has no consensus either. If you want to make your case for an across the board change to Common Era, then you should instead go to the Manual of Style. However, be aware that this may not affect articles about works of fiction if the work's creator(s) use Anno Domini to establish the time period of the work. —Farix (t | c) 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you do not understand what you are saying. You found no Gundam series using the term Common Era, this is already a perfect reason NOT to use it in this article since it is NOT used in this series. Your persistance illogical, or I should rephrase it to ill-logical argument can get you nowhere. You are being non-sensical here by introduing something you admited to have never been used by the official and any sources, thus you are introducing your own point of view and not being neutral to the sources. Neutrality does NOT mean using unoffensive terms, neutrality means that we provide all significant views that could be sourced from reliable sources. You claim of neutrality is biased towards an unsourced claim, thus it is NOT neutrality but simply a biased POV of your own. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Suddenly, I have realised that no one displayed the policy links here, I guess I will do it now. Grandmaster, please, for the sake of discussion, read these policy pages before you proceed: WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:PSTS. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

One series with two seasons or two series lasting for one season each?

One of the things that has bothered me for some time is if Mobile Suit Gundam 00 consists of two different series or is it one whole series consisting of two seasons. The reason for this question is that each Infobox animanga component is suppose to give an overview of an single series, including all seasons within that series.

Arguments for one series with two seasons:

• The series's title does not change
• Same production staff, studio, and network
• A break between seasons is not unheard of (ex. Tsubasa Chronicle)

Arguments for two series lasting for one season each:

• Time skip
• Entirely new character designs and mobile suits
• A break between the two seasons is very unusual in Japan
• Episode count restarts

Some of these are a bit superficial, but what are your thoughts? If it's one series with two seasons, then the two seasons need to be combined into a single infobox component. If it is two seasons with the same title, than we need to come up with a better way of handling the titles in the infobox components as it looks like "First Season" and "Second Season" are part of the official title. —Farix (t | c) 04:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

it's one series with two seasons. The second batch of dvd/blu-rays have the title 機動戦士ガンダム00 セカンドシーズン (kidoo senshi gandamu 00 sekando shiizun). amazon.co.jp example. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I will need some time to verify this, but from what I remember, it is one series with 2 seasons in the beginning of production. The producer had mentioned that the break is to ensure the quality of the show. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the source: Official site showing 1st season and 2nd season. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK then, I've combined both seasons into one infobox. The information between the two is the same anyways, just the episode count and start/end dates needed updating. —Farix (t | c) 11:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

@ 201.67.70.93 (talk): What is your bases that it is two separate series given the evidence provided in the previous discussion above that it is one series with two seasons? —Farix (t | c) 20:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Character popularity polls

The "popularity" section includes anime & character poll in the April 2008 issue of Newtype. However, I don't think this poll is notable enough because Newtype is published monthly along with a poll each issue. Typically, any reasonably popular currently-airing anime will get voted in the Top 10s of the month. Aside from that, Newtype is just one magazine, its character popularity poll doesn't hold more weight than other anime magazines like Animedia or Animage.

I suggest removing the poll result, or adding a tabulation from other months & magazines (might be too tedious), or only including annual character popularity polls, such as Animage's Anime Grand Prix. Nofairytale (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

Season 2 part 1 ANN Season 2 part 1 Mania.com Mania.com Season 2 part 2 Mania.com Season 2 part 3 ANN Mobile Suit Gundam 00 the Movie: Awakening of the Trailblazer ANN Shelf Life season 2 part 1 & 2

--KrebMarkt 18:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Popularity

About the popularity part, what is the point in comparing 00 to Seed and Destiny? shouldn't 00 be compared to other Anime from the same time period? (2007/2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.103.115 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

US release

The manga is being dropped by Bandai Entertainment; http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/bandai_downsizing_ken_iyadomi_interview --Gwern (contribs) 22:36 3 January 2012 (GMT)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mobile Suit Gundam 00. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328145825/http://www.sunrise-anime.jp/news/gundam00/movie/ to http://www.sunrise-anime.jp/news/gundam00/movie/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)