![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know why this is listed as American. There are no American's in it, nor American production companies. It has never been on American TV(to my knowledge), was barely released in the USA, and done so years after its creation. The title doesn't even use an American spelling. Since this page doesn't receive much traffic, I'm going to edit that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohmifune ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Is G-Saviour considered canon anymore?
It cannot simply be made Uncanon because it's unpopular. Plus, It's set so far into the future that It really doesn't matter.
So, Simple answer: Yes.
Actually, while I can't site a source directly to sunrise, numerous sites, uncluding mahq.net, the Unofficial North American Authority on Gundam information, have stated that Sunrise has officially annouced that G-Saviour has been removed from the Universal Century Canon. Here is what they had to say. (It's the Second question, here)
Yes, yes they can. Sunrise can do whatever they want to the series, they own it. If they say it's not cannon, it's not. I say good ridance. G-Savior pretty much undoes all the advancements from the previous series anyway.
-- 24.15.243.244 04:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! In fact, it hardly makes sense, as the only Victory Gundam level technology shown was the beam shield, while everything else was a downgrade, and I don't see how technology can decrease by that ammount in 70 years. And, to Egan Loo, was reporting me for Vandalism really necessary? I stopped editing it two days ago. And, anyone, if you have any information regarding whether or not G-Saviour was or was not de-canoned, then please, share your proof with us.
I see, and, while the J. J. Abrams article was outright vandalism, the others are not vandalism. It doesn't matter who is right, here, as vandalism corresponds only to obvious misinformation, while the G-Saviour topic is debatable, and, therefore, not considered vandalism. Still, I do recall that Sunrise did de canon it, but, should you refuse to believe it, then I guess that's your choice, but I still feel that you should make a note of the fact that there is still a debate going on, as 71.245.243.36, 24.15.243.244, you, and myself alike are proof that people generally don't agree on the article.
The G-Saviour title has been discontinued in North American and Japan!
http://www.gundamofficial.com/www_gs
Karozoa
04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
they did not write it in there last offical gundam entertainment Bible if they did not write it. it has officially been drooped source have a source//www.de-club.net/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.169.133 ( talk) 23:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the English source, official animate stories are in bold, yes, see the link of my reply just above this statement, it is in BOLD so your insistent of it being not canon has no support, to the point that it is totally your own imagination, and pardon my uncivil wording, it is rather an inability to accept the truth. For the Japanese wiki, the statement is U.C.223年という宇宙世紀作品の中でも最も未来を描いた本作であるが、当初は年号がS.C.(スペースセンチュリー)と表記されていて、宇宙世紀という呼称は同じでも別の世界であるとの設定もあった。現在では宇宙世紀の物語とされている。 meaning it was planned to be in SC(space century) instead, and planned to be another world. However, currently(at the time it is published instead of the planning phase) it is published as an Universal Century story. I would suggest with the inability to read both English and Japanese, you should stay away from this article(and possibly the whole wikipedia) and let people who actually understand the sources and with NPOV to edit it. MythSearcher talk 09:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
http://www.gundam30th.net/archive/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.215.221.84 ( talk) 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This article does not really explain why G-Savior is notable. It certainly does not pass the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (films). I suppose it has associated notability, as it is a part of the Gundam series, but I don't see it as being notable on its own (the article even admits that only die-hard Gundam fans will have heard of it). Perhaps this article should be merged into a general Gundam article? Blueboar ( talk) 14:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
References
they did this to cover it like it's an entertainment bible every thing official until gundam 00 is on there they could of gone to g saviour after victory gundam but they did not go to it instead they went back to the one year war. they don't mention it beacuse it not cannon meaning it not official so get over it okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.10.41 ( talk) 22:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
it is non canon for four reasons 1. both japanese and english websites were removed
2. it was not mention into of most two recent gundam fact files
3. in the second most recent gundam fact when they end victory gundam they went back to the one year war
4.G saviour wasen't showen on the offical project list of the old gundam website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.64.37 ( talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Animefringe: [2] -- Lucia Black ( talk) 07:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on G-Saviour. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on G-Saviour. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know why this is listed as American. There are no American's in it, nor American production companies. It has never been on American TV(to my knowledge), was barely released in the USA, and done so years after its creation. The title doesn't even use an American spelling. Since this page doesn't receive much traffic, I'm going to edit that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohmifune ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Is G-Saviour considered canon anymore?
It cannot simply be made Uncanon because it's unpopular. Plus, It's set so far into the future that It really doesn't matter.
So, Simple answer: Yes.
Actually, while I can't site a source directly to sunrise, numerous sites, uncluding mahq.net, the Unofficial North American Authority on Gundam information, have stated that Sunrise has officially annouced that G-Saviour has been removed from the Universal Century Canon. Here is what they had to say. (It's the Second question, here)
Yes, yes they can. Sunrise can do whatever they want to the series, they own it. If they say it's not cannon, it's not. I say good ridance. G-Savior pretty much undoes all the advancements from the previous series anyway.
-- 24.15.243.244 04:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! In fact, it hardly makes sense, as the only Victory Gundam level technology shown was the beam shield, while everything else was a downgrade, and I don't see how technology can decrease by that ammount in 70 years. And, to Egan Loo, was reporting me for Vandalism really necessary? I stopped editing it two days ago. And, anyone, if you have any information regarding whether or not G-Saviour was or was not de-canoned, then please, share your proof with us.
I see, and, while the J. J. Abrams article was outright vandalism, the others are not vandalism. It doesn't matter who is right, here, as vandalism corresponds only to obvious misinformation, while the G-Saviour topic is debatable, and, therefore, not considered vandalism. Still, I do recall that Sunrise did de canon it, but, should you refuse to believe it, then I guess that's your choice, but I still feel that you should make a note of the fact that there is still a debate going on, as 71.245.243.36, 24.15.243.244, you, and myself alike are proof that people generally don't agree on the article.
The G-Saviour title has been discontinued in North American and Japan!
http://www.gundamofficial.com/www_gs
Karozoa
04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
they did not write it in there last offical gundam entertainment Bible if they did not write it. it has officially been drooped source have a source//www.de-club.net/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.169.133 ( talk) 23:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the English source, official animate stories are in bold, yes, see the link of my reply just above this statement, it is in BOLD so your insistent of it being not canon has no support, to the point that it is totally your own imagination, and pardon my uncivil wording, it is rather an inability to accept the truth. For the Japanese wiki, the statement is U.C.223年という宇宙世紀作品の中でも最も未来を描いた本作であるが、当初は年号がS.C.(スペースセンチュリー)と表記されていて、宇宙世紀という呼称は同じでも別の世界であるとの設定もあった。現在では宇宙世紀の物語とされている。 meaning it was planned to be in SC(space century) instead, and planned to be another world. However, currently(at the time it is published instead of the planning phase) it is published as an Universal Century story. I would suggest with the inability to read both English and Japanese, you should stay away from this article(and possibly the whole wikipedia) and let people who actually understand the sources and with NPOV to edit it. MythSearcher talk 09:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
http://www.gundam30th.net/archive/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.215.221.84 ( talk) 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This article does not really explain why G-Savior is notable. It certainly does not pass the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (films). I suppose it has associated notability, as it is a part of the Gundam series, but I don't see it as being notable on its own (the article even admits that only die-hard Gundam fans will have heard of it). Perhaps this article should be merged into a general Gundam article? Blueboar ( talk) 14:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
References
they did this to cover it like it's an entertainment bible every thing official until gundam 00 is on there they could of gone to g saviour after victory gundam but they did not go to it instead they went back to the one year war. they don't mention it beacuse it not cannon meaning it not official so get over it okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.10.41 ( talk) 22:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
it is non canon for four reasons 1. both japanese and english websites were removed
2. it was not mention into of most two recent gundam fact files
3. in the second most recent gundam fact when they end victory gundam they went back to the one year war
4.G saviour wasen't showen on the offical project list of the old gundam website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.64.37 ( talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Animefringe: [2] -- Lucia Black ( talk) 07:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on G-Saviour. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on G-Saviour. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)