![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We don't need to summarize the Eva units on this page, because we already have an Evangelion page. Better to just link it. 192.91.173.42 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else notice how both the statement "Votoms is viewed as the peak of real robot anime." and that the "Famous producers of the Genre" are the same people? Can we get a bit more neutrality into this article please? Also, I don't care if you have 12 articles citing how something is viewed as the "peak" of real robot anime, those are opinion pieces. It doesn't make it something fit for an encyclopaedia. 69.165.139.12 ( talk) 03:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Nobody but you, MythSearcher, believes that Votoms are the pinnacle of Real Robot animation on this talk page. One article in another language does NOT qualify as a suitable set of reference sources. You need at least Three (3) reputable sources IN ENGLISH. Come back when you have those. -Type 100
Burden's on you, dude. Show us the article. In English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.170.164 ( talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to explicitly state somewhere in the article that "Real Robot" doesn't mean that the robots are literally designs that would be functional and practical in real life, since very few "Real Robots" would be. 71.203.209.0 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgable enough to start such a list, but the entry for Super Robot has a list, and I think this entry should have one too! - Eyeresist 03:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed Front Mission from the list but Battletech gets the OK? Big bobba the god 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Only some of the robots are "real robots". While it is more militaristic than Gigantor and the likes, the Arbalest is still in many ways a super robot, it has it's own "character", and the power of the Lambda driver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.7.2 ( talk) 05:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Uhhm...Why exactly is this article part of WikiProject Computing? This is about a genre of anime, and has nothing to do with computing whatsoever!! WTF!? Cabbage-Sama 10:25, 27 February 2008
The tags are simply disruptive and refuses to use common sense. The article contains multiple sources from independent parties all using the term Real Robot to refer to a type of anime, it might not be a genre, yet it is thoroughly used to refer to directors,(There is a best director of real robot anime) first real robot anime, peak of real robot anime and other supporting sources claiming the term is being used for a type of anime. There is no POV nor notability issue since it is not trying to claim anything from an editor's POV(and the NPOV guide claims that sources with their own POV should be listed). The refirm prove tag I could understand, since the article claims that it is a genre yet there are no reliable source directly quoting that.(mainly due to Japanese people seldom use the term genre) The other two tags, do not add it back, or AMIB, you can just go and list this in AfD and make it your WP:POINT campaign along with making yourself as a joke showing you lack of common sense in not reading articles sources while making false claims you imagined. This article is creating way too much trouble thanks to you, AMIB and the vandal who persistently disrupt (yes, this also includes AMIB) the page, one with a strong POV in redirecting the page falsely claiming it to be only SRW related at first and when sources show otherwise, tried to continue to falsely claim it to be Sunrise and Banpresto used only term, and further stipulate it to be a Gundam marketing term, while sources shown are obviously talking about other series as well. The other trying to add back the idiotic list without any source that includes multiple highly unsuitable series to the point where s/he only know how to revert the article to the state without any source and could face a total deletion is a simple stupid act on wishing the article to be deleted along with the list. I do not want to waste my time on this anymore, at least one side has to be gone, and the AMIB side seems to be easier to deal with(since AMIB got an account and is known to request for sources yet never read them) AMIB, I would ask for you to list this in AfD if you insist to redirect the page to somewhere or insist to place tags in this page to question the notability and POVness of the page, if you have so much doubt in the article's notability, show your arguments in somewhere people can laugh at your actions, instead of the persistent arguments against each of us to waste our time. Yet the AfD would also be filed and I would go and ask for an evaluation on your adminship since your actions are very disruptive and using your own POV to the point where it is out of common sense. MythSearcher talk 08:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 16:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Real Robot →
Real robot – The name of this genre is not a
proper name. Per
WP:NCCAPS, it should not be capitalized like one.
151.132.206.26 (
talk) 20:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
151.132.206.26 (
talk)
20:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The capitalization of “Real Robot” is non-standard; genre names (mystery, romance, science fiction) are not capitalized in English as a rule, and this name exists in lowercase usage. Someone earlier used Google Books to argue that the capitalized form predominates, but Google Books is unhelpful, as searches return many copies of this very article. So what should the title of this article be?
— 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 21:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I’m having difficulty finding many reliable sources that use the term (I’m not great at researching), but from what I’ve seen, Forbes, Anime News Network, and The Escapist all overwhelmingly prefer the lowercase form. So far the only case for capitalizing has been a careless and cursory glance at Google Books. If anyone could find either usage in other reliable sources (i.e. not blogs, not self-published books, not Wikipedia mirrors, not fansites), I’d be much obliged. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 01:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Strong arguments in favour of decapitalisation that have not been effectively countered. Regarding the disambiguation issue, the proposed title already redirects here so moving will not change the status quo and there is certainly no consensus in this discussion to change it. No prejudice against a new RM to discussion disambiguation. Jenks24 ( talk) 17:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Real Robot →
Real robot (or any proposed disambiguation with this title) –
Reliable sources such as
Forbes use “real robot” uncapitalized when referring to this genre:
[1]
[2]
[3]. Our own naming conventions (
WP:NCCAPS) call for using lowercase. There is no legitimate reason to treat this label as a proper name when we don’t do so for e.g.
science fiction, and when it is not done by reliable sources. Prior discussion suggests that title disambiguation is unnecessary (or at least does not enjoy consensus).
67.14.236.50 (
talk)
16:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC) modified 06:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We don't need to summarize the Eva units on this page, because we already have an Evangelion page. Better to just link it. 192.91.173.42 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else notice how both the statement "Votoms is viewed as the peak of real robot anime." and that the "Famous producers of the Genre" are the same people? Can we get a bit more neutrality into this article please? Also, I don't care if you have 12 articles citing how something is viewed as the "peak" of real robot anime, those are opinion pieces. It doesn't make it something fit for an encyclopaedia. 69.165.139.12 ( talk) 03:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Nobody but you, MythSearcher, believes that Votoms are the pinnacle of Real Robot animation on this talk page. One article in another language does NOT qualify as a suitable set of reference sources. You need at least Three (3) reputable sources IN ENGLISH. Come back when you have those. -Type 100
Burden's on you, dude. Show us the article. In English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.170.164 ( talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to explicitly state somewhere in the article that "Real Robot" doesn't mean that the robots are literally designs that would be functional and practical in real life, since very few "Real Robots" would be. 71.203.209.0 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgable enough to start such a list, but the entry for Super Robot has a list, and I think this entry should have one too! - Eyeresist 03:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed Front Mission from the list but Battletech gets the OK? Big bobba the god 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Only some of the robots are "real robots". While it is more militaristic than Gigantor and the likes, the Arbalest is still in many ways a super robot, it has it's own "character", and the power of the Lambda driver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.7.2 ( talk) 05:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Uhhm...Why exactly is this article part of WikiProject Computing? This is about a genre of anime, and has nothing to do with computing whatsoever!! WTF!? Cabbage-Sama 10:25, 27 February 2008
The tags are simply disruptive and refuses to use common sense. The article contains multiple sources from independent parties all using the term Real Robot to refer to a type of anime, it might not be a genre, yet it is thoroughly used to refer to directors,(There is a best director of real robot anime) first real robot anime, peak of real robot anime and other supporting sources claiming the term is being used for a type of anime. There is no POV nor notability issue since it is not trying to claim anything from an editor's POV(and the NPOV guide claims that sources with their own POV should be listed). The refirm prove tag I could understand, since the article claims that it is a genre yet there are no reliable source directly quoting that.(mainly due to Japanese people seldom use the term genre) The other two tags, do not add it back, or AMIB, you can just go and list this in AfD and make it your WP:POINT campaign along with making yourself as a joke showing you lack of common sense in not reading articles sources while making false claims you imagined. This article is creating way too much trouble thanks to you, AMIB and the vandal who persistently disrupt (yes, this also includes AMIB) the page, one with a strong POV in redirecting the page falsely claiming it to be only SRW related at first and when sources show otherwise, tried to continue to falsely claim it to be Sunrise and Banpresto used only term, and further stipulate it to be a Gundam marketing term, while sources shown are obviously talking about other series as well. The other trying to add back the idiotic list without any source that includes multiple highly unsuitable series to the point where s/he only know how to revert the article to the state without any source and could face a total deletion is a simple stupid act on wishing the article to be deleted along with the list. I do not want to waste my time on this anymore, at least one side has to be gone, and the AMIB side seems to be easier to deal with(since AMIB got an account and is known to request for sources yet never read them) AMIB, I would ask for you to list this in AfD if you insist to redirect the page to somewhere or insist to place tags in this page to question the notability and POVness of the page, if you have so much doubt in the article's notability, show your arguments in somewhere people can laugh at your actions, instead of the persistent arguments against each of us to waste our time. Yet the AfD would also be filed and I would go and ask for an evaluation on your adminship since your actions are very disruptive and using your own POV to the point where it is out of common sense. MythSearcher talk 08:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 16:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Real Robot →
Real robot – The name of this genre is not a
proper name. Per
WP:NCCAPS, it should not be capitalized like one.
151.132.206.26 (
talk) 20:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
151.132.206.26 (
talk)
20:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The capitalization of “Real Robot” is non-standard; genre names (mystery, romance, science fiction) are not capitalized in English as a rule, and this name exists in lowercase usage. Someone earlier used Google Books to argue that the capitalized form predominates, but Google Books is unhelpful, as searches return many copies of this very article. So what should the title of this article be?
— 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 21:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I’m having difficulty finding many reliable sources that use the term (I’m not great at researching), but from what I’ve seen, Forbes, Anime News Network, and The Escapist all overwhelmingly prefer the lowercase form. So far the only case for capitalizing has been a careless and cursory glance at Google Books. If anyone could find either usage in other reliable sources (i.e. not blogs, not self-published books, not Wikipedia mirrors, not fansites), I’d be much obliged. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 01:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Strong arguments in favour of decapitalisation that have not been effectively countered. Regarding the disambiguation issue, the proposed title already redirects here so moving will not change the status quo and there is certainly no consensus in this discussion to change it. No prejudice against a new RM to discussion disambiguation. Jenks24 ( talk) 17:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Real Robot →
Real robot (or any proposed disambiguation with this title) –
Reliable sources such as
Forbes use “real robot” uncapitalized when referring to this genre:
[1]
[2]
[3]. Our own naming conventions (
WP:NCCAPS) call for using lowercase. There is no legitimate reason to treat this label as a proper name when we don’t do so for e.g.
science fiction, and when it is not done by reliable sources. Prior discussion suggests that title disambiguation is unnecessary (or at least does not enjoy consensus).
67.14.236.50 (
talk)
16:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC) modified 06:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)