Talk:Real robot

Untitled

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)

Neutrality?

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)

Find a reliable source stating otherwise and you are free to add it in to make the article more neutral. I found the source stating Votoms, and Votoms it is, no matter how I dislike the series myself. This is neutrality, listing all major view points. Per WP:NPOV, this is what the encyclopedia needs, not ditching all opinion views. Opinions from wiki editors are to be ditched, not published critics. MythSearcher^talk 06:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, those are 2 different sources stated by 2 different companies and reporters, how did you find them to be the same people? MythSearcher^talk 08:19, 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

• Huh? Please direct me to the policy that state you need three sources. Until then, since your statement is fault ("Nobody but you, MythSearcher..."), I will stick keep that sourced info. L-Zwei (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • BTW, I don't agree with the sources, I have not watched Votoms. WP:NPOV states that we use sources that are verifiable and reliable, if anyone can find other sources stating otherwise, feel free to add them in. Since there are no other sources stating otherwise, these sources stay and are not ]WP:UNDUE. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 12:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

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)

The burden was met by that non-English source. If you want to challenge the claim or the source’s reliability, the burden is on you to check the source yourself, or to request a quote from it. Wikipedia has no restriction on source language, but if you have a suitable English-language source to use instead, that would be great. Especially if you can make the edit without making unreasonable demands of other volunteers. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Real" Robots

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 think that the description of what a real robot is, "The genre contains robots that are powered by conventional power sources and weapons that could be explained by real world science, and these robots used ranged weapons(especially guns and cannons) and speed to survive battle situations.", is partially inaccurate -- while real-world power sources and weapons may show up, and most real robot shows probably use technology that would fall within the unfortunately fuzzy boundaries of "hard sci-fi", they don't all (Gundam, IIRC, relies on Helium-3 fusion working differently than it does in the real world), and a better qualification is, as the Super Robot page notes, "a mecha portrayed as a relatively common item, used by military organizations in the same manner as tanks or aircraft." 76.99.183.84 (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While Super Robots are usually more or less Super Heroes, Real Robots fill military roles. If we use the definition "explained by in-universe science", Mazinger Z would also be a Real Robot. We get to know about the alloy it uses and its power source, it's built by a scientist etc., yet no one would argue against it being purely a Super Robot (unless, of course, they are trying to stir up a discussion or something). It's still not a definition you can use and apply on any series or game and easily see what fits where, but it's the best definition I've seen. --193.11.218.215 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gundam He3 fusion works exactly like the real world Muon catalysis fusion does, only it is catalyzed by a fictional particle that is longer live than the Muon. It is perfectly matching with Hard sci-fi on the terms of having a logical reasoning to solve problems. The soft part is that most of the reasoning for using giant robots in Real Robot series are not all that logical.(Like in Gundam, the MS's AMBAC is for space use, yet you see a lot of MS are used on Earth) MythSearcher^talk 08:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Real Robot shows

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)

Update: I have started a list of Real Robot shows in the article. Please add anything appropriate. - Eyeresist 06:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed Front Mission from the list but Battletech gets the OK? Big bobba the god 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Would someone ref the list? and also, the list is quite redundant, can we just list the notable series instead of every single anime and game? MythSearcher^talk 08:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was the list removed? It was great for people trying to find harder to find series in the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.63.214 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Full Metal Panic

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)

• As noted in Super Robot, line between two genre is sometime blur. However, have character/personality doesn't prevent it from being real robot (the earliest real robot with personality , AFAIK, is Layzner from SPT Layzner back in 1985. It's only its Lambda Driver that truly an issue. However, by using "how they treat mech" method, it's clearly real robot show. At best, Al is Sosuke's "buddy", but it still not symbol of justice. L-Zwei 05:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem of such classification is, the author of FMP denies it to be a military based story, and said he did not intend it to be realistic. The out come looks realistic is only because he himself is a military otaku. MythSearcher^talk 08:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Computing?

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

Tags

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)

Requested move 4 February 2016

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: 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)

• Oppose per book usage "a real robot" refers to an actual physical robot not an anime genre. plus "Real Robot" is capitalized when searching with "anime" In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  This page would be better titled Real Robot genre with the current title redirecting to that. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  Agreed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  (Nominator here, on home PC.) Is there a simple way to exclude books from a search that republish Wikipedia content, like PediaPress? Adding “-wikipedia” does not exclude PediaPress books. We already know that we currently capitalize this term, as shown in your findings. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The article should at the very least be consistent. The title is capitalized, the first instance is capitalized, but otherwise it’s lowercase throughout. This should not be acceptable. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Move to Real robot (genre). Genre names (of any medium) are not automatically capitalized in English, and this term is in use in English without capitalization—a Google News search of “real robot anime” currently returns five results from four sources, none of which capitalize it. But it’s ambiguous with the actual subject of robots, and since the genre is often referred to as “real robot” alone when discussing anime and manga, parenthetical disambiguation seems appropriate. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• suffix with (anime) or (genre) if decapitalized, as it would be ambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support OP. I'm not sure about adding (genre); we usually don't do that unless there's another article to disambiguate with. We also don't normally put "genre" in the title of genre articles. It's ok to leave it as Real robot. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Makes more sense as "Real Robot". But there's nowhere anywhere else for real robot to point to, so there should be no parentheses added.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Cuchullain: If I can ask, how does it “make more sense”? Do you mean it’s more readable? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2016 (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.

RFC: What should this be titled?

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?

• Real Robot
• Real robot
• Real Robot (genre)
• Real robot (genre)
• Real Robot genre
• Real robot genre
• Other?

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment I feel this is actually a two-stepped question: Whether the title should be capitalized, and then whether it should be disambiguated. So it would make sense to decide on the capitalization first right? (Or else we'd be trying to have two separate arguments at the same time) Opencooper (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, but capitalization can also be used as disambiguation, so I don’t think the two can really be discussed separately. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an example of an unjustified RfC. I think an RfC should not be able to be initiated without at least two editors agreeing to put the question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have a better way to seek consensus on a lightly-trafficked page besides attempting another move, I’d be happy to try it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. There is a lack of rationale to need to do anything. The case for moving from the status quo in the above RM was not strong. RfCs are best reserved for important contentious matters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Following the rules of English and our own naming conventions isn’t a strong case for naming? I don’t see that, but you’re entitled to your opinion. Also, WP:RFC reflects none of what you claim of RFCs, so that issue may be one of personal preference. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, no, I am all for following the rules of English and our own naming conventions (except where there is reason for exception). I think the case is not clearly made as to the problem. Is not "Real Robot" a composition title or a real name? It doesn't look like a descriptive name. Is it source styling? Some people have quite restrictive rules for what can be a real name. I think anything that is singular/individual can be given a real name. I think this is one of the great many cases near the boundary of being a valid real name. That most genres don't get real names is not, for me, a compelling reason no genre can have a real name. I am open to persuasion. I think you should make a stronger case for a need for change. Further, I don't like completely open questions, they remind me of spam surveys. Giving one or a few suggestions is much better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You are correct in that I have a personal opinion here. It is the same as I had at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12#Too_many_RfCs._Require_a_seconder_for_every_RfC. In short, there are so many RfCs with bad questions, or with unimportant questions, that it is too tedious to browse all RfCs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It’s a descriptive name for a genre. This genre uses real robots rather than super robots. If the genre was named for something titled “Real Robot,” I am not aware of it and the article makes no mention of it. So capitalization is no more appropriate here than for “mystery” or “urban fantasy.”

If you’re suggesting that the genre itself has a proper name, not derived from any other proper name, that would be a first, as far as I know. Could you give any other examples of such? Or any sources that claim it is one? There doesn’t seem to be a preponderance of evidence for capitalizing the name by convention—a Google News search shows almost exclusively lowercase usage for at least the first 30 results. So if it’s not a proper name, I say we shouldn’t treat it as such. (But if you find it is predominantly capitalized by convention, that’s as strong an argument as any.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no, I am asking the questions, and you know what you are talking about. You are beginning to make a clearer case. Based upon your explanation, I would suggest real robot animation. It needs another word to be sufficient as a description. You seem to be suggesting stop-motion animation using real robots, where "real" really means "real". Is that right? It certainly isn't clear from the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, no; I didn’t realize how unfamiliar you were with the subject. It’s largely (exclusively?) a genre of anime and manga. Gundam Wing is a real-robot series, where the robots are manufactured by people and used in mundane life, whereas Voltron is a super-robot series, where the robots are legendary or mythical or sentient. Both series are traditionally animated anime. Any other questions? =) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone in favor of disambiguating with “genre” if we used Real robot? If not, I’ll attempt the RM again, since reliable news sources overwhelmingly do not capitalize it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think "genre" is both implied and too vague a description. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 17 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)

• Hey guys, I was brought here by the Feedback Request Service. I did a little digging myself when I saw the question, although I already had an idea what my answer would be. What I've seen is that any writing I could find on a professional level that used common, multi-name genre titles for any media did not use title capitalization for the genre name. So Real robot would be my vote for the proper title. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Concur with MjolnirPants. Gamaliel (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2016

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. 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)

• Comment: When citing search results to support your position, please ensure that your results include reliable sources. Please also note that simple reprints of content taken from Wikipedia are not reliable sources. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The entire claim here is "Forbes writes it thusly", which is insufficient in itself. However, it's also not true; Forbes articles under /sites/ are all blog posts, not reliable reporting, and especially not useful to establish matters of style. Since there's nothing else here, there's no argument present for a move. 64.134.185.83 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There was more than one sentence here—I also invoked NCCAPS and project-wide consistency, and I merely used Forbes as an example (I’ve given others elsewhere on this page). But to your point, please see WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:UGC, WP:RSOPINION, all of which contradict your blanket claim. Also, no real rationale has ever been given for the choice to capitalize this title, a choice which is ungrammatical and, again, contradicts our own guidelines. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don’t know if it’s relevant, but this !vote is the only edit this user has ever made. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this isn't about real robots, this is about the genre, all of which contains fictional robots, instead of real robots. That's not even considering real world uses for real and fake robots. Or real and actual robots (ie. androids vs actual robots; when people say car assembly line robots aren't "real") -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  It's ok to not capitalize descriptive names for genres. We don't capitalize "poetry", e.g., so please lets stop making that argument. We also don't add capitalization simply to help clarify poorly worded sentences. Who does that. That really is way out in the weeds. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Okay, maybe I was wrong about the need for disambiguation; you are completely correct. Can we at least agree to use lowercase? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Can I get people’s thoughts on making an open (“… → ?”) move proposal if this one fails? My RFC failed to find a consensus regarding title disambiguation, but there was a consensus for using lowercase, and no rationale has yet been offered for capitalizing. So I’m thinking if we can have a move discussion without “oppose” votes based on title disambiguation, we might be able to at least set it in the right direction. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Note to closer: Please consider the strength of the arguments. There is an opposing argument in favor of disambiguation (which would be better done as something like Real robot (genre) or Real robot anime), and there’s a straw man argument, but no argument in favor of the current title has been presented. Unanswered appeals to grammatical correctness, use in reliable sources, consistency in similar article titles, and WP naming guidelines surely count for something compared to that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support "Real robot" or any disambiguation thereof. The default for any title should be capitalization of the first word and no capitalization thereafter. If specific sources can be shown that this genre is treated as a proper noun with capitalization of "robot", then capitalizing "robot" would be preferable. No sources have been advanced to that effect. The above RfC should be considered by the closer, particularly the policy-based arguments of MjolnirPants and Gamaliel, who both examined the actual reliable sources and found no instances that treat this as a proper noun. ~ Rob^Talk 18:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support–Per Rob, we don't normally capitalize things in WP unless the preponderance of sources do as well. Also, no need to disambiguate, since there is no other article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:36, 28 April 2016 (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.