Talk:G-Saviour

American?

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)

Canon?

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)

Numerous unofficial sites saying that there is an official announcement is not the same as an actual official announcement. Until there is an official announcement, the article should not claim anything beyond what Bandai's Gundam Perfect Web's G-Saviour DVD page (Japanese), Sunrise's G-Saviour DVD page (Japanese), Bandai Visual's G-Saviour DVD page (Japanese), and even Bandai Entertainment's GundamOfficial.com's Frequent Asked Questions has. Egan Loo 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

That's the issue—Sunrise can do whatever it wants with G-Saviour, but Sunrise has not announced G-Saviour is not canon. There are "numerous" unofficial sources that claim that Sunrise announced that G-Saviour is not canon, but no announcement has actually surfaced. (See the G-Saviour page on the official Sunrise website.) Part of the reason is that Sunrise simply doesn't issue announcements like that. Once Sunrise makes an announcement or (more probably, but still unlikely) creates a story that specifically rewrites the history of the post-UC 0220 period, then this should definitely be noted in the article. Until then, unsourced fan speculation does not belong in Wikipedia. Egan Loo 05:44, 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 did not report you for vandalism on just this article. I reported 71.245.243.36 for several acts, including vandalizing the J. J. Abrams article by replacing the entire first article with "STFU NOOB!", reverting corrections to this article after repeated warnings, and repeating the erroneous information on Sunrise's stance in Mobile Suit Victory Gundam, Universal Century, List of Mobile Weapons, and Age of the Warring Space States. Four of the articles were altered in the last two days. (See the history page on each of these articles for the "paper" trail.) Please, 71.245.243.36 or AEUG, respect the Wikipedia process and only include information that is verifiable and citable. That is what makes the Wikipedia different from many other websites. Egan Loo 05:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

A first attempt to add erroneous information in good faith is not vandalism; indeed, it is welcomed for its good intentions. However, repeated attempts to explicitly add erroneous information and remove verifiable information, despite repeated warnings and clear explanations of Wikipedia's policy, cease to be in good faith and is considered vandalism.

It's not a matter of belief itself when it comes to Wikpedia sources — the very reason for having only citable, verifiable information is so we don't have to depend on people's individual beliefs. There is no debate that no one can present an actual official statement from Sunrise on G-Saviour's timeframe besides the original UC223 date. Once there is a newer official statement from Sunrise, there shouldn't be a debate there either — that new statement should be immediately added. However, fan debates without citable official sources don't belong in Wikipedia articles. Egan Loo 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Unfortunately, this error message is not yet true in Japan. It's discontinued in North America, but it's still available in Japan. See its entries in the official Gundam, Sunrise, and Bandai Visual websites in Japan, as linked in the Wikipedia article. Amazingly, Amazon.co.jp still has it for 24-hour delivery, long after Amazon US stopped stocking it. If this movie was discontinued in Japan, the Bandai Visual website would normally remove its entry, like it did for the box set version of the first Macross series. Egan Loo 05:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I still treasure my G-Saviour DVD! Karozoa 05:22, 26 February 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)

Got an actual source that backs your claim? Otherwise, it's original research. Edward321 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lack of inclusion does not officially state its uncanonity, lack of inclusion only means that it is not included. If you want to say it is not canon, you have to find an actual source stating G-Saviour is not canon. An official source: here showed G-Saviour in the correct chronological order and did not drop it. MythSearcher^talk 09:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the persistent, uncivil vandal who kept stating this is unofficial

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)

Notability

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)

I don't know, it is the 20th anniversary of the Gundam series, only live-action movie production in the whole series. Isn't that enough associated notability? It also have a PS2 game, a 2 booked novel, a Maxi single for the game and 3 sound cinema. Seems like the notability issue could be settled if someone got sources for those information. MythSearcher^talk 15:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

References

it not cannon get over it

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)

Unless Yoshiyuki Tomino or Sunrise directly states that it is not cannon in a published source, we can't not say that it is not cannon. --Farix (Talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They covered G-Saviour in the official web site listed above, and it is always the MOST up-to-date source since they kept updating it. Without removal of it in the official web site, it will be deemed as canon in all aspects. They did not include Crossbone in the newest Mobile Suit Illustrated 2009, yet Crossbone is listed to be canon in the August issue of Gundam ACE. And the entertainment bible you said included only anime series, so it is very obvious that it did not include the live-action movie and it is very reasonable. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:25, 4 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)

It is canon since the Japanese site is still up and running, thus your 1st argument is invalid: [1], you don't even seem to know what fact files are, it does not include everything every time, you only tried to include some official publication to fake your sources, fact files go back to OYW very often. the above links you removed actually included one with G-Saviour listed, and your removal of it showed your vandalism. So you can shut up, stop all your unsourced vandalism and go away before you are blocked AGAIN with all your sock puppet IPs. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to reverted vandal's further comment about: Here is what they had to say. (It's the Second question, here)

MAHQ is NOT an official site, so you are the one who is believing, confirmation biasly, onto something WITHOUT official announcement and credit. Bandai and Sunrise NEVER announce ANYTHING to be non-canon, even the very exotic manga stories never received such formal announcements, but only authors' self-proclaimed unofficialness, yet Tomino's long announced Gaia Gear as non-canon(almost at publication), the official website still list it in the FAQ section. You will also have big trouble finding sources citing Zeta the movie as non-canon by Sunrise or Bandai. You are labeled as a Vandal, 204.169.64.37, because of your many edits included various error that are clearly different from all official materials, for example, the One Year War article edit you persistently made is different from the referenced official website. You went way beyond the disruptive stage long ago, you have poor understanding of Wikipedia's policies, poor understanding of official materials(and what is official, by the very fact that you tried to cite an unofficial website, which is only considered Fanon, without actual official sources), and poor grasp of English as a whole, also kept trying to change your IP address from time to time and all the other edits you made on Wikipedia which also caused a lot of trouble and been blocked multiple times on multiple IP, you are simply a deluded person who cannot accept other views and keep forcing your own erred one when all evidence prove that you are wrong. BTW, even when using your poor and incorrect sourcing, a later rant by Chris stated "In the case of G-Saviour, it's not that it isn't canon". So please go find an official source to support yourself before you think you got any grounds. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Review(s)

Animefringe: [2] --Lucia Black (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930152503/http://product.bandaivisual.co.jp/web_service/shop_product_info.asp?item_no=BCBF-0807 to http://product.bandaivisual.co.jp/web_service/shop_product_info.asp?item_no=BCBF-0807

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) 03:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204100855/http://www.ex.org/1.2/32-gundam0079.html to http://www.ex.org/1.2/32-gundam0079.html

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) 08:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)