Talk:Metal Gear (mecha)

A note about Arsenal Gear

I have neither the time, nor the skills neccessary, nor the formatting habits nor formatting knowledge to actually improve the article... but my knowledge from the game allows me to tell you guys that Arsenal Gear was designed to operate with a Destroyer escort, so when Revolver allows Fortune to take command/possession of Arsenal, it truly would be a suicide mission as without its Destroyer escort a fleet of hostile warships with heavy conventional weapons could easily fulfill the task of sinking Arsenal Gear. --Blue Spider 00:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear G Revision

I thought I'd let you guys know that I rewrote my section on Metal Gear G; I had initially said that it was a small version of the TX-55, but it was actually the Metal Gear D model. I also failed to mention the much smaller scale, as well as the fact that more advanced sensors were added. Just thought I'd let you all know that. Village Baka 05:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I also just recently added an image of the G, plus a picture of the Metal Gear MK.II from Snatcher. Village Baka 05:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New Metal Gear RAY Picture

Simply put, the current one sucks. You can barely pick out the units in the picture, and even then only if you already know what it looks like. In short, it simply needs a new picture. Village Baka 03:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Advice taken and Ray picture changed to one which is much more recognizable. --Johantheolive 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! That is exactly the image I hoped you would use. Thank you! Village Baka 19:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Johnny2x4, why did you revert to the old image? The new one is much more distinguishable. Village Baka 06:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back to the original picture I posted...hopefully this won't turn into an image battle.--Johantheolive 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The one without the other two Metal Gear Rays is better. I don't plan on changing it, but I personally liked the pic with only one, and apparently most other people do as well. ~ Ultimate Perfect Chaos 02:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC) ~

Oh, S*** Spiderman! Looks like someone wanted the bad picture back. I'll change it once I get the chance. Village Baka 03:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Otacon's Mk.II and Gekkou.

Aren't their inclusion in this article sort of crystal balling? There's really not much to say about them other than they appear in the MGS4 trailer. I also tempted to include a section for AU Metal Gear models such as the original Mk.II, Gander and Kodoku (from ACID). Jonny2x4 17:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like crystal balling to me. And I wouldn't mind seeing articles for the AU models. - DoubleCross 18:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the information included in those two sections are completely legitimate; If I remember correctly, they don't include any information that can't be confirmed from the trailer. I'll look it over and edit it if I'm wrong. On the side, thanks to whoever correctly formatted my section on Metal Gear G. I'm still learning how to use this whole thing. - VillageBaka 14:50, 3 March 2006

I noticed while viewing the hi-def trailer that there's a Japanese symbol in the lower left hand corner of the screen when it shows the first person view from the Gekkou. I don't know Japanese so if there is anyone that does, can they check it out and comment on it? StealthHit06 08:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Question... where exactly do you get the name Gekkō from... With the accent mark above the O. Where has there been confirmation of this? In Metal Gear Acid 2, there is a card of this particular Metal Gear, calling it Gekko, without the mark above the O. Where did that mark come from? - Xero Anarian 12:54, May 23, 2006

The accent mark you refer to is called a macron, and it identifies a long vowel sound. See [Hepburn romanization] for further details on its use in rendering Japanese words. There is essentially no difference between spelling Gekko with and without the macron in this context; all Japanese MGS fans should recognize the word, and English-speaking MGS fans probably will not be troubled by it. -- Asterphage 02:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the Metal Gear that Otacon controls resemble more the Metal Gear TX-55 version than the Snatcher's Mk. II? Where was it ever officially refered that the new Metal Gear was based on the Snatcher's?

Which model it resembles is a total matter of opinion, but it's the identical names that put them together. 68.110.13.13 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And where did Kojima state that the new model's name was Mk II? I didn't read it anywhere else besides this Wikipédia article.

I don't know the original source, but it was widely reported in print media at the time of the release of the trailer that included it. PSM, for instance, identified it as Metal Gear Mk.II. -- Asterphage 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed the Gekkou section of the article only by omitting the part where it says Gekkou's nuclear capable. I haven't heard anything of it being capable of such, and it doesn't look like it, either. If someone can cite a source, be my guest. Juno Loire 19:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Gekko carries nuclear weaponry, though the type isn't specified. This is mentioned in the summary for its card in Metal Gear Ac!d². Another issue worth note is that Gekko is NOT a Metal Gear model. I'm currently looking for a source, but Kojima talked about this in a magazine interview a few months ago. He compared Gekko instead to a type of Jeep rather than a Tank. Nitroid

Here's the source for it. EGM Scan @ MGSTUS I'm still learning how to handle adding references and such so if someone could add this to the main article, I'd really appreciate it. Nitroid

Metal Gear Mk. II is a miniture model of REX Otacon uses to help Snake in his final mission. It is capable of user control and can stun enemies. And as for Gekko, they are unmanned machines used by PMCs to kill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.91.54 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Shagohod

I understand that Sokolov says the Shagohod can't be detected by satellites or spyplanes, but that's impossible: the Shagohod would have to be literally invisible, and there's no evidence of such an ability in the game. More likely, given that Sokolov's entire speech is comparing the Shagohod to convential ICBM silo complexes, he's referring to the ability to hide a Shagohod in a hangar at any airfield, without needing a huge concrete silo network to house it. It would in this way be 'invisible' until it was deployed.

It's also possible that Sokolov was exaggerating the threat of the Shagohod: the speech was, after all, delivered to a soldier, not an engineer, and a soldier he was trying to motivate to destroy it at that.Hrimfaxi 07:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that when he said it would be "invisible" to sattelites, he was refferring to general scans. The only way that it would be detected would be if a spyplane/sattelite was sent specifically to look for the Shagohod, seeing as it is portable and most likely unrecognizeable in a satellite image.

Take note, guys-I'm not sure if Hideo Kojima and Motosada Mori researched the deployment history of the SS-20 Saber IRBM, because it did not exist during the time of the game. The only Soviet ballistic missiles in service at the time were numbered from SS-6 to SS-11-and all of them were not big enough to fit in the Shagohod's launch tube. They were at least 22 metres each while the Saber measured at 20m. The SS-20 only entered service in 1976. Just a little trivia. thanks. Eaglestorm 05:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear REX

The picture for REX is not a picture of REX at all, it is the original painting Yoji Shinkawa made. Note the Cannon-like artillery instead of the 2-pronged rail gun presented in the later models and game.

It looks identical to the game's model to me. I don't see much of a difference in its rail gun. Jonny2x4 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't mind if I change it. Right? I got a picture from the game at mgrex.jpg

The new pic is a correct depiction of the REX used in the game. Its a little bit hard to make out, but I'm just complaining. I do that a lot.

Questions (basically clarification)

Isn't Metal Gear REX the only Metal Gear (not counting the Shagohod) to explain its process of launching nuclear weapons? Should little deatil be included in the article. Also dont all the Metal Gears use the radome camera system? -- Psi edit 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The only Metal Gears to use a (visible) radome are REX, Gekko, and the Shagohod. TX-55, G, D, and MK-II (both versions) all have visible cameras and sensors. Gander, RAY, and the Chaioth Ha Qadesh are all assumed to see through their "eyes", and Metal Gear 2 looks like it has a glass windshield over the cockpit. I'm not sure about Kudoque... I never got a very detailed look at it, but I didn't see any radomes on it.

As for the nukes... the Metal Gears capable of firing a nuclear missile (that means everything besides both MK-IIs, D, Gekko, and Ray) have an obvious means of doing so, even if it isn't really explained in detail. Village Baka 21:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Total rewrite and images

I've completely rewritten this article (well, I'm not done yet, but I will be by the time anyone sees this, I imagine). I don't forsee most of the rewrites being controversial, but I have trimmed down the many redundant images. While I tried to use the most illustrative image available, I had to remove a number of otherwise-usable images because they had no source (and they have been tagged as such).

Please do not replace any of these images unless you source them first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What's your reason for cutting pretty much the entirety of the description of Metal Gear G, as well as the drawing of it and the scale diagram? Also, why is a photograph of an action figure a better image choice for MG Ray than the original design drawings? If there was a great screencap of it, fine, but I don't think the toy is the most authoritative example. -- Asterphage 22:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I cut almost all of the Metal Gear G stuff because it doesn't appear in any game and it was wholly unsourced. It really belongs more in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (or on a gaming wiki, frankly; in-universe information about an object not appearing in any fictional work isn't terribly encyclopedic IMO) than here anyway. I cut the images because they were unsourced or unspecific (although I think the image of the series of Metal Gears might be good for the lead, if it's sourced; I'm going to check.)

The images should've had the exact same source information as the illustration of Metal Gear D; from the MSX manual for Metal Gear 2. G is described in the manual as well. --Asterphage 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the line drawing of Ray, it looked terrible when scaled down to 200-300px, and was sketchy enough even full-res to conceal a fair amount of detail and didn't show color. (I'm not a big fan of the other line drawings, frankly, but there's not much of an alternative for most of them.) I used the action figure image because it's crystal-clear and gives a great place to mention the somewhat-interesting circumstances surrounding the action figure. I wouldn't object to replacing the image with a screenshot or render, as long as the detail was equally clear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've been watching for representative (not stylized), sourced, and detailed images, and that action figure image was the best I could find for RAY. J2x4 uploaded a very stylized promotional image that really doesn't look very much like the RAY does in the games at all, for example, and I reverted that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that using "not stylized" images is a sound idea, since the designer of the Metal Gear Solid series is one who heavily implements his personal style in all his work. I see your points about the quality of that particular image of the Ray design art, but I think if I can get my hands on a good-quality scan of the two-page spread of Ray designs from the Art of MGS2 book, it would be quite appropriate.

{{linkimage|NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|The Metal Gear family of mecha.}} Incidentally, what on earth is going on in this image? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Shinkawa's revision of TX-55 (front view) on the left, Rex (side view) on the right, with MG D (side view) behind it.

What's wrong with the promotional render that was in place a while ago? It has the same level of clarity, and it isn't an action figure. :P Village Baka 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with the use of the action figure photograph; it is clear and representative. Image:Metal Gear Rex line art.png is, contrarily, extremely muddled when scaled down, and the fair use rationale given is weak-to-nonexistant.--SB | T 06:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you do realize that we are debating about the RAY picture, not REX... right? Village Baka 06:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Non-Canon" Metal Gears ?

Is there any source for the statement that Ghost Babel, Acid and Acid 2 are non-canon? I don't see one, and I got no response when I asked this on the talk page for Metal Gear (series). I think such a statement really requires a source. -Anonymous

As of yet, there is no official statement, or even any reason to believe, that the Ac!d titles are related to the main storyline. Yes, they have Snake, but that's hardly anything to go on. Even if they are (which is doubtful), there is no information that would help place t anywhere in the series. It's just safer to place them as non-cannon titles.

As for Ghost Babel... well, several big inconsistencies seperate it from the storyline altogether. Village Baka 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Bleeding Metal Gears?

Hey guys. I recently completed MGS2 for the nth time, and I couldn't help but notice that during your fight with the RAYS, whenever you launch a stinger at their knee, they happen the bleed. Blood pours out of their knee, and their knee stains the way a guard's clothing does. Now I know that this could just be 'oil' or something similar, but it appears to be the exact shade of red that blood is, and it even seems to stain them. I suppose that it could be a bit of bad programming, and they may have left it the same as a guard's programming (such as bleeding when shot and staining their sprite) but even in the MGS4 trailer, I am pretty sure I saw blood spraying out when Raiden cuts 'em up. Any explinations? Red oil? Something else? Or a programming glitch? The Haunted Angel 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Both sections describe this blood as artfificial muscle used to make the metal gears move in a non-mechanical function. -- Psi edit 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What source is this from? The Haunted Angel 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the original source, but "officially" its a nanomachine fluid that runs through the RAYs and GEKKOs. When it gets hit by something and "bleeds", the nanomachines in the fluid repair the "wound". That's why the the RAYs in MGS2 were able to regenerate without any obvious means of repair.

I'll play through MGS2 again and see if they say anything there. If someone else finds anything, please, speak up.

Oh, and the fact that it's red is just supposed to add to the creepy factor. XD Village Baka 05:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot for that info mate ^_^ The Haunted Angel 11:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. No problem. Village Baka 02:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone has any source for claiming that what the Gekkos bleed is the same as the nanopaste in the RAYs, hm? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

None exists. However due to the smiliarites between the two I guess that's where that conclusion came from. --Shaoken 12:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. --The Haunted Angel 14:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that said, don't add a comparison to the article unless you have a source that says they're the same. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures?

Who the fuck took all the pictures down? The KODOQUE and CHD pics were taken down, and I want to know why.

They weren't sourced, so they were deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You can get both of them at Konami's Metal Gear pages.

I'm not dying to burden this page with more fair-use images, especially of weirdo offshoot designs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Who gives a damn if it's a "Weirdo offshoot"? That's not a good enough reason at all. They're both Metal Gear, and there exists a hi-res picture of both of them. They should be put up, to improve the article. I'll work on it.--Snake Liquid 01:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you scale the image down to screen resolution. Don't upload an image of any higher resolution than necessary, per WP:FUC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

RAY

I think this is a problem, is that the best picture of Metal Gear RAY we can get, an image of an action figure, is there no other picture!?

(The Bread 07:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

It's clear, not stylized, and it allows a mention of the action figure itself. What's wrong with it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an action figure, it seems outta place . All the other articles have the orginal sketches and stuff, is there really no actual picture of RAY we can use?

(The Bread 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

Well, everything that has been offered so far was really sketchy or insanely cluttered. I wouldn't mind an equally-clear, equally-representative picture of the RAY, although I admit I'm fond of the action figure pic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What about a good screen shot (Like Gekko)?

(The Bread 07:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

Nobody has come up with one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well i'll try and find one and i'll put it here, first, then if everyone's happy i'll put it in the article

(The Bread 07:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

Okay, I had put this up in this section before, but appraently someone thought it would be funny to "edit out" my opinion. Now then.

For the hundreth time, what's wrong with the damn promotional render that was in place a while ago?!? I don't mean the line art, I mean the RENDER. It was crystal-clear, representative, and most importantly NOT an action figure. I don't see why anyone would not want that image, so can I ask why no one wants to acknowledge it? Village Baka 06:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, better picture?

I'm not a player of the game, but I do know about the series, and some basic curiousity drew me to this page. And my first thought was, "That's the best picture that can be posted?" Then I see on the talk page that there's some kind of image battle going on. That's just sad. I'd like to know about the series and the Metal Gears, but that crap picture doesn't help. --Boradis 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you can come up with a good image for any of these, go right ahead. I gave up on it after sifting through dozens of partially-obscured, blurry, or bad-angle screenshots for most of these. (For example, we had an awful image with a bunch of RAYs in front of each other for the MGS2 image for the longest time, then we had this overly-stylized pic, then we had the action figure pic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the over stylised one is the best one out of the whole lot, we should go back to that until we find a better one.

(The Bread 03:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

It was unsourced, IIRC, and not at all representative. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really. Well if it was unsourced then you should remove it. I don't have a vlue what IIRC is but i'll take your word for it. As for it not being representative, so it's a different colour, if i was to get a source for it and make it not IIRC, would you then still object

"If I Recall Correctly." I would still object because it doesn't look anything like the RAYs do in the game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah alright, it doesn't, my argument was weak as anyway. I just don't like the action figure and i am finding it difficult to find a good screenshot

Yeah, I was having the same problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved ladies. Here's a straight on render of both the Marines prototype and the Patriots' mass produced versions:

Marines: http://www.sirall.com/MetalGear/Data/MGS2_Mech/RAY-marines.jpg

Patriots: http://www.sirall.com/MetalGear/Data/MGS2_Mech/RAY-sonsofliberty.jpg

Snake saves the day again. Now to find a better MGS2 render for Solid Snake.--Snake Liquid 01:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are sort of dark (which is fixable) but don't have a primary source (which is not). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So source either the site they're linked from, or just do it the easy way and source it to Konami. Obviously that's the primary source where they came from. Fixed.--Snake Liquid 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those are sufficient. We need to source the image to whoever created it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, what about fair use, they'll pass that surely, and they're perfect. Also why can't we source it back to the website they're from, we should put them up, ASAP

(The Bread 04:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

We can't claim fair use because we don't have a primary source. That site isn't the primary source because it's clear that they didn't make those renders themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it's obvious it wasn't them, it was Konami that made them! Konami's the primary source! Where did logic go on this one? Just credit them and it's taken care of! Either that, or for the sake of improving the article, you ignore the fair use bit as directed by WP:IAR. Wouldn't that site using it be an example of fair use anyway?--Snake Liquid 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't ignore the fair-use rules with WP:IAR. That will just get you blocked.

Was this a cropped screenshot? Who took the screenshot? Who cropped the screenshot? Where did Konami publish these images originally? These are the answers that need to be answered before using a fair-use image. No image is better than an unsourced one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How can I get blocked for following a rule that says to ignore the rules in order to improve an article? Talk about contradiction. Plus, the fair-use stuff is allowed to be ignored in cases like this, it's not an enforced law here. This is obviously better images than the toy, don't be anal-retentive about it. Those questions you ask don't even matter, as long as you credit Konami, since that was their original source. No one is going to make a big issue of that. --Snake Liquid 05:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Because this rule exists to help preserve the "free" in "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia." Plus, Jimbo has ordered a crackdown on misused fair-use images, and there's no way to write a fair-use rationale for an unsourced image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll handle this.--Snake Liquid 05:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How are you planning to handle this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

;) I got you covered. You'll see.--Snake Liquid 06:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Was this a cropped screenshot? Yes

Who took the screenshot?/Who cropped the screenshot? The guy who manages that site. He used a capture card and the Document of MGS2 disk. Now you have a source. I'm taking some of my own render shots now. The mech ones are coming out great but the character ones are so/so.--Snake Liquid 01:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Everyone wants a better image, so here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MGS2-MetalRay.jpg There. Any objections? Village Baka 06:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's awesome for the Marines prototype. I've got a render I took myself for the Mass produced one.--Snake Liquid 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

RAY pictures

I updated the RAY picture and caption using the image provided by Village Baka above, and uploaded and added the Mass Produced RAY image and caption. I'm going to try to find a good render shot of REX.--Snake Liquid 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• groan*

Someone reverted it back to the toy. Speaking of which, might I ask why information about the toy's availability is relevent to the article? Village Baka 02:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back to how I had it. Black, for one, on the RAY render wallpaper, it SAYS the source right on the bottom, 1987-2004 Konami Computer Entertainment Japan. That's blatantly obvious and it wasn't smart to revert it back, since everyone's going to prefer that to the image of a toy. Second of all, that Mass Produced render is the only good picture we have, it's sourced (I'M THE DAMN SOURCE FOR THE MASS PRODUCED RENDER, in case you bothered to look), and it's the best render you're gonna find online now that I put it there. Saying it's ugly isn't a valid reason, that's subjective. If you can find a better one, by all means, have at it. Until then, it's the best we have, and it stays. --Snake Liquid 02:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, not everyone; I rather like the toy image, and User:Sean Black above seemed to like the toy image.

You aren't the source for the mass-produced render. It says, right there, than it's "your friend."

I could be convinced to change my mind, but not to use images without valid sources or license info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well until you show some good faith Wikipedia:Assume good faith, you're gonna have to not start an edit war over this, and you can't play dictator this time. You "could be convinced?" I'm not here to play games with you, no one needs anyone's permission to do anything here. The source for the wallpaper is staring you in the face, and I'm the source of the MP render. He gave me the shot, I cleaned up the extra graphics, I asked him to take the shot for me because I don't have the capture card. I'd show you the log but that'd be a waste of time. I am a valid source, and the RAY wallpaper has a valid source on it. I say again, don't start an edit war over this or I'm going to have to ask others for assistance. Instead of just simply reverting something next time, talk it out here first like it says to do in the good faith policy, rather than blatantly going against it, please. --Snake Liquid 06:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• ... Okay that wasn't me but they had the right idea.--Snake Liquid 06:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an edit war. This is removing copyvio, until you get proper source and license info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, the "assuming good faith" was assuming that putting a GFDL tag on a screencap and the PD tag on an image with a COPYRIGHT KONAMI on it was a good-faith error. Do not put these images into any article until they are properly tagged, and if they aren't (you have two days, per policy, due to the lack of fair-use rationale), I will delete them as copyvio. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright then! Instead of being thick headed, why don't you actually try to help out with that?--Snake Liquid 13:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell isn't this a familiar situation, I’ve read this hole argument and i can't figure out what’s wrong with Image:MGS2-MetalRay.jpg that Baka put up. At the moment I’m seeing the toy which really doesn't fit with the rest of the article.

(The Bread 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

Let's get into detail.

• Image:MGS2-MetalRay.jpg - Where did this come from? Yeah, Konami, I get that, but we have different fair-use rationale depending on if it's a promotional image, scanned from a promo brochure, from a behind-the-scenes work, or whatever. If it's an artbook scan, it may not be fair use (as that is less fair than using an actual promotional image, and may not be allowable even without an alternative.)
• Image:MP-RAY.JPG - This is a screen cap from Document, right? This one has quality, instead of copyright issues: it's low-quality, badly cropped, and badly aliased. Additionally, we don't need two fair-use images where one suffices.

The first image is an admin hat issue. Until you resolve those problems, you may not under any circumstances use that image in any article.

The second image is a content issue, and, while the image is technically usable, it's awfully low-quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of rambling about it, why don't you actually help out with that first image detail, since you're such a huge Metal Gear fan. As for the second image, you won't find any better, and you work with what you can. Really, you're the only one who's complained about the quality, as I'm sure others were appreciative that there was an image to illustrate the difference between the two RAY models.--Snake Liquid 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where that image came from. I can't tag it properly without knowing that. It's rather the problem. Where did you get it?

While it would be nice to have two images, WP:FUC is the law of the land, and we can't use two fair-use images where one would suffice. In this case, we have two higher-quality images that are equally as representative and much less grainy; we're probably better off with one of those. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. It appears the Shagohod image is also a picture of a toy; it's the 1/144-scale model from the Japanese Premium release of MGS3. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's only one more day to get license info for the RAY image, or it will have to be deleted. Again, I ask; where did it come from? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

REX and RAY in uppercase?

I've played every MGS and in the subtitles I always see Rex and Ray spelled as such and not in all uppercase. Why are they spelled REX and RAY in this article?

Because it is spelled REX & RAY in the games, play the game again you'll see

(The Bread 04:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

Gekko a Rex Derivitive?

I came to that conclution after Beating MGS:TTS and MGS2: SOL so should the Gekko be Older than it looks? (Like Built around the Time Metal Gear Solid 1 ended?)

How'd you come to that?

(The Bread 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Well After Revolver Ocelot gave out/Sold the Schematics for Metal Gear Rex and how Dolph Mentioned how many were "Rabid" around the World I came to that conclution Also becaue how it looks *head* carries the Side weaponry just how Metal Gear Rex had the Railgun and Radome Held on its sides. and it walks like it just less Static.

Of course it's a REX derivitave! It's design and the events of the games all point to that. However, I wouldn't say it was built until after MGS2, though. According to the MGS4 trailers, GEKKO is used during that war in the middle east. There was no mention of the war during MGS2, so I'd reckon that they were designed (or at the very least, built) at some point after Sons of Liberty. By the way, always place 4 tildes (these thingies --> ~ ) at the end of your comments to identify yourself. Village Baka 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're allowed to just shoot the breeze about MG-REX especially when there is more important things to do (The Bread 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

Like stumping for votes on AFD? ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As per edit summary

(The Bread 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

REX Missiles can't be detected, at all

Even though Metal Gear REX's rail gun can fire a nuclear warhead to anywhere in the world without a propellant trail, wouldn't there be a hot-air-compression-wave in front of the missile, like when a shuttle descends to earth really fast? The bow of the missile would get really hot, probably to the point where it will burn up the missile or be detected, what gives?

Don't blame Wikipedia for inconsistencies in the game itself. :D (also, please to be signing your comments.) 71.118.76.69 05:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the 2 pieces of information we need are... how fast does a missile have to go before it heats up, and how fast would one of REX's missiles come out of its railgun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New Metal Gear

Hi, first of all, I really enjoyed reading this article. So, since the next Metal Gear game will be Portable Ops, does anyone here know if there will be a new Metal Gear or at least a simular based weapon included in the game? Or even an early prototype of some of the early Metal Gears? Thanks for reading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Front 11 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah their is a new Metal Gear, two actually. They are both the same type but one isa prototype. MtyQuinn 15:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Name of MPO's Metal Gear

Why the insistence on titling the section itself "Metal Gear RAXA"? RAXA was merely the incomplete prototype's codename. The final unit itself was never called anything but "Metal Gear" throughout the game. --Grant Dempsey 14:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it confuses a bit to have only "Metal Gear", because it leads people to think it's the model from the original MSX game, which is TX-55. But "Metal Gear & Metal Gear RAXA" seems good. Either that or "Metal Gear (RAXA)"

Is it just me, or the section regarding the new Metal Gear prototype (RAXA) is too long? I don't see the need of having so many details, when it comes to the plot of the game itself. Anyone else agrees? -- Bigger Boss 17:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I do. It can really be shortened to a paragraph for the prototype and another for the real Metal Gear, can't it?

REX image

Someone keeps putting the image of REX in a battlefield. That image was just a nod to a image of Metal Gear D in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. REX is never used in a battlefield, only in the fight against Snake, so stop putting the image.

Actually, after MGS, the blueprints for the REX were sold on the black market by Ocelot, and several other countries used them to develop their own Metal Gears. As a result, as of MGS2, there are many REX derivatives being used in military operations all around the world, and that image could be illustrating the point. They make a pretty big deal of explaining that in MGS2, because its the reason why the RAY was created.

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal Gear's Status

I'm slightly surprised that there is no mention in the article that Arsenal Gear is actually a Metal Gear itself. While it might be drastically different from the conventional Metal Gear models, it is still referred to as one. This also makes me question its placement in the "Related Weapons" section. I think it should have its own section, or at least it should be mentioned in its subsection. Melee Ace 02:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's more of a docking bay rather then a full blown Metal Gear.--Hitamaru 02:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your personal judgement, however. In the game, it is directly stated by President Johnson as the latest model of Metal Gear. The argument is moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.244.140 (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

MARINES' RAY

Just thought you all should know that the RAY Ocelot is piloting appears to be the Marines'/Prototype RAY.If you look very carefully, on the left leg, while RAY is sliding, on the dock or where ever the location is, toward REX you see the "Marines" logo on the leg. Look CLOSELY it took me a few times to spot it and make sure it said MARINES-Change is coming and potter should have died I might be Trolled and I just don't care 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

actually, it does not say MARINE, but OUTER. There appears to be some more writing, but i cant make that out, HAVEN perhaps, but not MARINE this image proves such existence (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/xenox/untitled.jpg) i took the screencap from the japanese trailer, its in a higher definition than the english, but either way, it still says OUTER Dar-zero 09:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"GEKKO" vs. "GECKO"

"GEKKO" is not the correct spelling. "GECKO" is the spelling used by the game, as seen during the CODEC sequence which includes references to them, in the recent playable demo.--Grant Dempsey 05:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Payton has stated that the English translation in the demo was incomplete and full of many placeholders, so this shouldn't be taken as fact. All promotional materials and interviews have it listed as GEKKO. It will stay as GEKKO until either directly addressed or until the final game comes out and shows otherwise. Please stop changing this.

The "GECKO" spelling was in the Japanese version of the demo, actually. The status of the English translation at the time is totally irrelevant.--Grant Dempsey 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Ryan Payton has just confirmed "Gekkou" to be the proper name. That is as close to "directly addressed" as the issue is going to come, so, for the time being, it must be used.--Grant Dempsey 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TX-55 Metal Gear specs.png

Image:TX-55 Metal Gear specs.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SSBB clarification

In this footage, it's clearly seen that the third model that appears in Shadow Moses is the Gekkou. Therefore we should adjust the page accordingly. Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MGA2.JPG

Image:MGA2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Metal Gear Gekko.JPG

Image:Metal Gear Gekko.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of universe perspective

There's lots of commentary about the designs of the Metal Gears from REX onwards from the art books, Making Of MGS2 documentary, etc. which would help make this article more interesting than the current list-o-things-we-already-know. Anyone care to step up? 137.195.232.177 (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking about reconstructing this article myself as well. As it is right now, its a thinly-disguised in-universe character list. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Outer Haven?

Now that MGS4 is out and people are just about finished with it, is it okay to add any information about Outer Haven to the article, since it counts as a Metal Gear derivative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.121.13 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Outer Haven the same thing as Arsenal Gear? I thought it was a different ship (similar to how RAY is an evolved form of REX and so on). Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Gekko a Metal Gear?

In the game that they are featured(MGS4), it is stated that they are not Metal Gears, and the text also states that they only look like Metal Gear models. Shouldn't we therefore remove them from this article? Moccamonster Talk 21:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The article also features the Shagohod and Arsenal Gear. The Shagohod is clearly not a Metal Gear (while it does quite clearly take it's place in the Cold War era when there is no Metal Gear), and I'm not the authority to decide on what Arsenal Gear is. However, the Gekko uses technology and designs from REX (and maybe even RAY?), so it applies as a Metal Gear enough to be featured here. --71.101.33.94 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Arsenal is considered a step up because they first referee to it as a new type of Metal Gear but see it's something more then just something like REX and RAY . Gekko is considered something like a Metal Gear light because in an interview by Hideo Kojima he's quoted saying "they are more like a jeep or a tank compared to the conventional Metal Gears such as REX and RAY" which are like a newer heavier howitzers and other heavy cannon weapons,while Arsenal is like a brand new stealth bomber. Size dosen't really matter you forgot Otacon calls his little mini help the Metal Gear Mark 2 and 3. In my book I consider Shagohod a protype metal gear even thought it wasn't designed or developed by Granin or an Emmerich, RAXA is the first real one basing of Granin's designs but with Sokolov's touch (I see Sokolov as a psudeo-grandfather to REX Since he built the Shagohod which failure helped him build RAXA and provided data that helped in the building of every metal gear after). Then TX-55 the first full bipedal design, D which is a slightly remodeled version of TX, Next Rex which is mainly based off Granin's designs but also build upon the data of the failures of Shagohod,RAXA,TX,D. Finally there's Metal Gear RAY which is the last normal metal gear it was bad to combat REX based designs(even thought the prototype was bested by the original REX and it's Mass produced copies where bested by Raiden and Solidus), this is where it takes a hard left turn with Arsenal(sort of the next step up from the bipedal Nuke shooters by being a platform capable of launching nukes and bipedal metal gears), Gekko by Raven sword obviously based on the last two bipedal metal gears but slimmed down to not carry nukes, and Otacon's Mark II and III which are obviously based on a mix of TX, D and REX but shrank to be a little assistant during recon and stealth missions. I believe that there is one more which are Raging Raven's Drones which are pretty deadly and take the metal gear concept in another direction.Vault9Dweller (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Question about quality of Metal Gear (weapon)

I have looked over this article and it is severely lacking. The references are inadequate, there seems to be an overabundance of non-free images and it appears to be written in a very in-universe style. It is, to my eyes, looking more like a piece from a dedicated wiki rather than a page that belongs on Wikipedia. It needs sorting out, or it may well end up getting deleted sooner or later. I had considered putting it up for deletion, but this seemed a far better route to take. Is there any way of salvaging this article? --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well (tooting my own horn), as someone who does a lot of editing and sourcing for fictional character articles, I can say that Metal Gear probably has enough sources (should anyone be willing to do the work to find them). The biggest problem is that your options are to search for Metal Gear and dig through all results relating to just the game, or try and limit the possible results at risk of possibly missing very good sources because one of the ways you limited the search excluded one. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I made Tyrant (Resident Evil) this simple. (From a redirect, I'll add.) --Niemti (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

But no, it may not "well end up getting deleted sooner or later". --Niemti (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it could. If no one does the work to prove notability, then as far as we are concerned, it's a non-notable subject. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is already done. (And by me.) But it should be simplified and de-inuniversed, it reads almost like an article about real tanks (REAL TANKS ARE ON TRACKS COMRADE). With the Tyrants I basically just listed these things. --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we get it. It probably is notable, the point they're trying to make is, sometimes notable articles that look like garbage could be wrongfully sent to AFD and deleted if enough editors don't look close enough and just vote "Delete". This is probably that type of article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of unref'ed material here, suggesting a ton of fancruft that shouldn't be hear but at the metal gear wikia. That said, the mecha itself may be notable, the few inclusions in Top 10 lists and such seem to satisfy notability. Probably. I'd vote week keep at afd, unless I saw more compelling arguments in either direction. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I came to this thread via an RfC ping on my talk page. The opening statement lacks focus and this thread appears to be a rambling discussion not an RfC. Good luck with the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Metal Gear (mecha). There is a clear consensus that a new disambiguator was needed. Several terms were floated as alternatives. Mecha seems to be acceptable to nearly all participants, and robot clearly less so, despite the previous discussion at Talk:Gundam_(fictional_robot)#Requested_move_13_September_2017. "Fictional" is not necessary, as there is no real-life Metal Gear mecha. MOS:INUNIVERSE will be satisfied as long as the lede and article body are written accordingly. Aervanath (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Metal Gear (weapon) → Metal Gear (fictional robot) – Nominating this page to put it in line with the generally agreed upon disambiguation for mechs, as per the move discussion at Talk:Gundam (fictional robot). "Weapon" doesn't specifically establish it as a fictional element, which poses a MOS:INUNIVERSE problem.

While the Shagohod might pose an issue, not being a robot, but a tank, the article makes it clear that it is not in fact a Metal Gear, and that "Metal Gear" only refers to the mecha variants. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 06:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Metal Gear (fictional mecha), per Category:Fictional mecha and per Zxcvbnm's own argument in the Gundam RM (sorry to cite you against your own proposal :p) - «There is literally no other way to describe it other than a mecha. That is the specific term for a giant, piloted robot. It we used "robot" then it would imply it did not have a pilot. Ultimately just because you are unfamiliar with the concept, doesn't mean it's not unsuitable, as there is an entire article that explains the concept at mecha and it's a pop cultural term that a large number of people know (albeit in the more slang form of "giant robot").» I suppose I'm not terribly opposed to Metal Gear (fictional robot) for the same reasons the Gundam RM closed that way (mecha being a subset of robot and robot being not perfectly precise, but "precise enough to disambiguate"). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I'd also support (mecha) and to a lesser extent (robot) if the "fictional" part is deemed unnecessary. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is no requirement that the disambiguation phrase identify a topic as fictional, and that per normal disambiguation rules, the clarifying phrase should be as short as posdible. (The fictional nature should be immediately clear in the lede). A nice to (mecha), (vehicle), or similar would be more appropriate. --Masem (t) 06:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – I agree with Masem and oppose the idea that the disambiguation includes the adjective "fictional". Simply "(weapon)", "(vehicle)", or "(mecha)" would do. I also oppose to the suggested "robot". ~Mable (chat) 08:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Maplestrip: As there are currently "real" mecha (however few) the lack of a fictional descriptor wouldn't fly. I had assumed that usually fictional articles identify they are fictional in the disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Maplestrip has a point. The fictional is unnecessary over-disambiguation unless there is a real robot called Metal Gear. But any of the proposals would be better than the current name, and it seems agreed (but not unanimous) that a move is necessary. Andrewa (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't robot imply it is controlled by AI? I ask this because the majority of the Metal Gears in the series were manned, making them vehicles. Either keep it at "weapon" or move it to "vehicle". I'd also avoid "mecha", as it is too niche/otaku for the general English reading population, in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93:Basically... no. Mecha are considered robots rather than vehicles and some Metal Gears are even autonomous._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, a robot doesn't need to be controlled by AI (although our robot article would lead you to believe that it does). Have a look at https://www.msn.com/en-ae/video/tech/giant-walking-robots-piloted-by-people/vi-AAjrQPQ?refvid=AAjrQPQ and http://au.ign.com/articles/2015/07/02/usa-builds-giant-piloted-robot-challenges-japan-to-a-robot-duel. The use of the word robot to include piloted vehicles may be changing (or not), but for now this is part of English usage. Andrewa (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support spirit of the move. Prefer "mecha" to "fictional mecha". I don't see a need for "fictional" per Masem (and am unsure it's desirable per WP:CONCISE). Oppose "robot" since robots are generally considered to be unpiloted. --Izno (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • robots are generally considered to be unpiloted... the links I provided above suggest otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Parallels Gundam (fictional robot) (see its RM linked to above) and all the same arguments apply. That well discussed and hard-won consensus should be applied here too, and move on. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metal Gear (mecha). 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/20131219063436/http://www.ugo.com/games/we-love-these-video-game-robots-even-though-they-cant-love-back?page=6 to http://www.ugo.com/games/we-love-these-video-game-robots-even-though-they-cant-love-back?page=6

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) 15:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)