![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I have to do an assignment for my technical writing course and I was hoping to use this article for that assignment. My hopes are to expand on some sections within the page. The Perfect Grade (PG) section within the 1/60 scale area. I think this section could do with more information as the PG line is usually referred to as the luxury liner of Bandai models. I think including the common features they share like lighting gimmicks as well as the increase in detail in the stickers included as well as the model itself. I will need a 2500 bytes in changes so I may expand some other sections as well. Things like the SD section has some information that is incomplete. -LandonWade
The use of model scales for describing fantasy robots is pretty much useless unless you are a fan who knows how big the fictional robot is supposed to be. Can someone include a description of how large the various models are?
-J
I'd like to request that the topic Gunpla Grade be merged with this one. E Wing 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The very first kits, now 20 years and routinely re-released by Bandai. These kits, when completed, had a very poor range of motion which rendered them almost unposeable. In addition, adhesives and paint were necessities, not options. Although not called as such back then, these models were retroactively categorized as FG (First Grade).
I believe these kits can't be called "First Grade" since there are only 3 kits labeled as "FG" (First Grade itself). These kits are the RX-78-2 'Gundam', MS-06 Zaku-2 and MS-06S Zaku-2 Char Custom, of 1/144 scale and with integrated joints, are produced in year 1990 (content verifiable from the Bandai Gundam Catalog 2004). All other 1/144 kits are referred to as "1/144" only. E Wing 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be added since the 1/100 GN-001 Gundam Exia has been released to the public for a while. I checked around the box at the local hobby shop and no grade ID has been labeled, possibly like SEED's 1/100 models? 66.183.215.186 ( talk) 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just done with re-arranging the kits into their specific scales and kit categories, also re-written and added some. Please note that this is still unfinished. E Wing 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be classfied under MG since SEED Destiny #10 Force Impulse w/ sword silhouette Extra Finish Version is HG. 64.180.187.24 ( talk) 09:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible/ok to include information about Gundam figures ( GFF, AMSiA, MSiA, Jumbo Grade, etc.) and integrate them to the model kits' scale classification? E Wing ( talk) 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I just added the ver. Ka line to the MG list. Can somebody please expand it and also add the ver. 1.5, 2.0, and the HD variants? Thanks. E Wing ( talk) 14:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
My main suggestion is that perhaps a mention about how "Gunpla" is in the anime, Keroro Gunso. Anyone else care to add anything? =3 Krazywrath~ ( talk) 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article mention the new 1:1 model? [1] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Should metallic coating(?) and mechnical detail be include in the artcle? User:C933103 05:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The entry states that there have been only three High Grade EX kits, but makes no mention of the 1995 1/60 Wing Gundam Zero. I'm not sure if the Wing Gundam Zero box had the High Grade EX shield, it probably didn't, but it had similar characteristics to the three earlier ones:
Could it be that Bandai killed off the High Grade EX line while the 1/60 model was in the works and released it anyways?
Box image manual image 1 manual image 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.129 ( talk) 21:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I must say that this article became a disgustingly bad one. It is currently over organized into fine categories of every single product line's trivial like a commercial ad and is really not helping the reader understand the overall product's notability. These kind of articles attracts deletionists, and something must be done to stop this. If this is AfDed, we have no defence at all. The current single 3rd party reliable sources is number 5(blogs are not reliable and hlj, the company, is not independent 3rd party). I propose to delete all of the product line descriptions and keep it simple, talk only about the main products that appear dominantly in model magazines, that are the HG/RG 1/144, MG 1/100 and PG 1/60, and only mention briefly on the other scales in like one single sentence. In fact, this topic is rather notable if correct sources can be found, there are numerous TV shows that visited the Gunpla factory, numerous model magazines that teaches modeling of Gunpla and even TV shows that teach how to build plastic models extensively show the modelers building Gunpla. The article need a major revamp if it wants to survive any longer. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher talk 04:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with most of Mythsearcher's points. This article can not, and should not, be a repository to list every Gundam model line, every scale used, every type of special edition made, etc. Over time this article has become riddled with lists, trivia and redundancies. Readers trying to learn about Gunpla through this entry are going to find it a poor resource.
I am recommending the following changes:
- The article should be organized by grade rather than scale e.g.(ungraded, SG/FG/EG, HG, MG, PG, RG). Organizing model kits by scale is not intuitive. Categories should be based upon groups that have common characteristics. What, aside from scale, does a 1/144 kit from 1980 have in common with a 1/144 HGUC kit from 2011? So much variation exists underneath each scale, that the same thing is said multiple times in the article in order to be comprehensive. Grades, on the other hand, are a (reasonably) stable unit of organization, since Bandai does not invent a new one every year, and kits under each grade have enough commonalities that you can write useful and comprehensive information about them without being redundant.
- Rather than attempt to list all the product lines, I would suggest using more general statements. Something along the lines of "Bandai tends to release model lines to coincide with a manga or animation they produce, however they also have long-running model lines that cover specific eras, types of mecha etc."
- The history is a nice addition, but there is a lot of trivia in there. I recommend trimming this down to focus on the evolution of Gundam models from paint/cement/glue them yourself kits to highly articulated snap-together figures. I would omit information on one-off kits, special editions, or "innovations" that did not make it into technology Bandai currently uses in their kits.
- As Mythsearcher said, we need more sources and more citations. I wish I was a person who could provide this, but unfortunately I'm not... - Another addition that I would be of no help myself to contribute would be about the fandom itself. Talking about Gundam-specific modeling contests, sites,etc something that indicates a cultural impact... Shogun221 ( talk) 02:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I need to edit a Wikipedia assignment for class. I was hoping to work on this assignment. I see the 1/110 RE line has very little information on it and I hope on expanding that section. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LandonWade ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I rewrote a significant portion of this article because I found it very hard to read and not very encyclopedic. It still falls short of the mark, but I've added several citations to support assertions that I felt were not supported by the few that were already in place. Due to the nature of Gunpla as a largely Japanese hobby, it's difficult to find high quality citations in English, so I'm still working on improving that element.
With no offense intended to anyone who has worked on this article before, as an encyclopedia article it is not very helpful to a newcomer or for the purpose of casually discussing the hobby. Easily 75% of the article's content is trivia (when specific lines were introduced, which models are in which line, etc) rather than broad descriptions of the models themselves or the hobby around them. In my opinion, much of this info should be moved into a "Lines & Models" master section, and the remaining skeleton of the article should be reworked to give better summaries of the concepts.
Also, I feel the scales/grades section should not be merged as it is. Scales are not tightly coupled to grades, and based on my experience speaking to gunpla builders, grades are the primary categorization used in most contexts. I think it should be reorganized into sections by grade, with the scales common to each grade listed within each one, and the bulk of each section dedicated to describing the typical properties of each grade. Gravislizard ( talk) 16:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There may be a debate to be had on this topic. I removed most information about non-Gundam models from this article, including a change I just reverted by User:Protothedweeb because it's specifically titled "Gundam model." I do not profess to be an expert on the gunpla hobby community, and while I can imagine the *term* might be shorthand for other Bandai models in the same design style, I feel like "Gundam model" needs to mean things *from the Gundam series.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravislizard ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
title is self-explanatory, a figure line dosent really belong in a section about model kits
Additionally, this is on me, but I should the section on Minipla should be deleted as it is not really Gundam-related, and should lines featured in the article be only Gundam-focused (no 30 Minute Missions, etc.)? AranaeHere ( talk) 15:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I have to do an assignment for my technical writing course and I was hoping to use this article for that assignment. My hopes are to expand on some sections within the page. The Perfect Grade (PG) section within the 1/60 scale area. I think this section could do with more information as the PG line is usually referred to as the luxury liner of Bandai models. I think including the common features they share like lighting gimmicks as well as the increase in detail in the stickers included as well as the model itself. I will need a 2500 bytes in changes so I may expand some other sections as well. Things like the SD section has some information that is incomplete. -LandonWade
The use of model scales for describing fantasy robots is pretty much useless unless you are a fan who knows how big the fictional robot is supposed to be. Can someone include a description of how large the various models are?
-J
I'd like to request that the topic Gunpla Grade be merged with this one. E Wing 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The very first kits, now 20 years and routinely re-released by Bandai. These kits, when completed, had a very poor range of motion which rendered them almost unposeable. In addition, adhesives and paint were necessities, not options. Although not called as such back then, these models were retroactively categorized as FG (First Grade).
I believe these kits can't be called "First Grade" since there are only 3 kits labeled as "FG" (First Grade itself). These kits are the RX-78-2 'Gundam', MS-06 Zaku-2 and MS-06S Zaku-2 Char Custom, of 1/144 scale and with integrated joints, are produced in year 1990 (content verifiable from the Bandai Gundam Catalog 2004). All other 1/144 kits are referred to as "1/144" only. E Wing 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be added since the 1/100 GN-001 Gundam Exia has been released to the public for a while. I checked around the box at the local hobby shop and no grade ID has been labeled, possibly like SEED's 1/100 models? 66.183.215.186 ( talk) 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just done with re-arranging the kits into their specific scales and kit categories, also re-written and added some. Please note that this is still unfinished. E Wing 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be classfied under MG since SEED Destiny #10 Force Impulse w/ sword silhouette Extra Finish Version is HG. 64.180.187.24 ( talk) 09:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible/ok to include information about Gundam figures ( GFF, AMSiA, MSiA, Jumbo Grade, etc.) and integrate them to the model kits' scale classification? E Wing ( talk) 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I just added the ver. Ka line to the MG list. Can somebody please expand it and also add the ver. 1.5, 2.0, and the HD variants? Thanks. E Wing ( talk) 14:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
My main suggestion is that perhaps a mention about how "Gunpla" is in the anime, Keroro Gunso. Anyone else care to add anything? =3 Krazywrath~ ( talk) 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article mention the new 1:1 model? [1] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Should metallic coating(?) and mechnical detail be include in the artcle? User:C933103 05:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The entry states that there have been only three High Grade EX kits, but makes no mention of the 1995 1/60 Wing Gundam Zero. I'm not sure if the Wing Gundam Zero box had the High Grade EX shield, it probably didn't, but it had similar characteristics to the three earlier ones:
Could it be that Bandai killed off the High Grade EX line while the 1/60 model was in the works and released it anyways?
Box image manual image 1 manual image 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.129 ( talk) 21:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I must say that this article became a disgustingly bad one. It is currently over organized into fine categories of every single product line's trivial like a commercial ad and is really not helping the reader understand the overall product's notability. These kind of articles attracts deletionists, and something must be done to stop this. If this is AfDed, we have no defence at all. The current single 3rd party reliable sources is number 5(blogs are not reliable and hlj, the company, is not independent 3rd party). I propose to delete all of the product line descriptions and keep it simple, talk only about the main products that appear dominantly in model magazines, that are the HG/RG 1/144, MG 1/100 and PG 1/60, and only mention briefly on the other scales in like one single sentence. In fact, this topic is rather notable if correct sources can be found, there are numerous TV shows that visited the Gunpla factory, numerous model magazines that teaches modeling of Gunpla and even TV shows that teach how to build plastic models extensively show the modelers building Gunpla. The article need a major revamp if it wants to survive any longer. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher talk 04:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with most of Mythsearcher's points. This article can not, and should not, be a repository to list every Gundam model line, every scale used, every type of special edition made, etc. Over time this article has become riddled with lists, trivia and redundancies. Readers trying to learn about Gunpla through this entry are going to find it a poor resource.
I am recommending the following changes:
- The article should be organized by grade rather than scale e.g.(ungraded, SG/FG/EG, HG, MG, PG, RG). Organizing model kits by scale is not intuitive. Categories should be based upon groups that have common characteristics. What, aside from scale, does a 1/144 kit from 1980 have in common with a 1/144 HGUC kit from 2011? So much variation exists underneath each scale, that the same thing is said multiple times in the article in order to be comprehensive. Grades, on the other hand, are a (reasonably) stable unit of organization, since Bandai does not invent a new one every year, and kits under each grade have enough commonalities that you can write useful and comprehensive information about them without being redundant.
- Rather than attempt to list all the product lines, I would suggest using more general statements. Something along the lines of "Bandai tends to release model lines to coincide with a manga or animation they produce, however they also have long-running model lines that cover specific eras, types of mecha etc."
- The history is a nice addition, but there is a lot of trivia in there. I recommend trimming this down to focus on the evolution of Gundam models from paint/cement/glue them yourself kits to highly articulated snap-together figures. I would omit information on one-off kits, special editions, or "innovations" that did not make it into technology Bandai currently uses in their kits.
- As Mythsearcher said, we need more sources and more citations. I wish I was a person who could provide this, but unfortunately I'm not... - Another addition that I would be of no help myself to contribute would be about the fandom itself. Talking about Gundam-specific modeling contests, sites,etc something that indicates a cultural impact... Shogun221 ( talk) 02:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I need to edit a Wikipedia assignment for class. I was hoping to work on this assignment. I see the 1/110 RE line has very little information on it and I hope on expanding that section. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LandonWade ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I rewrote a significant portion of this article because I found it very hard to read and not very encyclopedic. It still falls short of the mark, but I've added several citations to support assertions that I felt were not supported by the few that were already in place. Due to the nature of Gunpla as a largely Japanese hobby, it's difficult to find high quality citations in English, so I'm still working on improving that element.
With no offense intended to anyone who has worked on this article before, as an encyclopedia article it is not very helpful to a newcomer or for the purpose of casually discussing the hobby. Easily 75% of the article's content is trivia (when specific lines were introduced, which models are in which line, etc) rather than broad descriptions of the models themselves or the hobby around them. In my opinion, much of this info should be moved into a "Lines & Models" master section, and the remaining skeleton of the article should be reworked to give better summaries of the concepts.
Also, I feel the scales/grades section should not be merged as it is. Scales are not tightly coupled to grades, and based on my experience speaking to gunpla builders, grades are the primary categorization used in most contexts. I think it should be reorganized into sections by grade, with the scales common to each grade listed within each one, and the bulk of each section dedicated to describing the typical properties of each grade. Gravislizard ( talk) 16:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There may be a debate to be had on this topic. I removed most information about non-Gundam models from this article, including a change I just reverted by User:Protothedweeb because it's specifically titled "Gundam model." I do not profess to be an expert on the gunpla hobby community, and while I can imagine the *term* might be shorthand for other Bandai models in the same design style, I feel like "Gundam model" needs to mean things *from the Gundam series.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravislizard ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
title is self-explanatory, a figure line dosent really belong in a section about model kits
Additionally, this is on me, but I should the section on Minipla should be deleted as it is not really Gundam-related, and should lines featured in the article be only Gundam-focused (no 30 Minute Missions, etc.)? AranaeHere ( talk) 15:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)