Talk:Zaku

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page Split Proposal[edit]

Question: Should the Zaku II page be seperated like the RGM-79 GM with each variation and different model having their own page? I encourage a vote. 65.1.69.106 21:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say no. I like stuff like this on Wikipedia but I do think it's better to not overproliferate it. Besides which, really most of these variants (Zaku, Zaku F2, Zaku FZ) are better interpreted (IMO) as different visual representations of the same machine. The need to use continuity and backstory to "allow" all these different variations to exist at once is pretty silly - but although that's the path we've chosen already we should nevertheless treat them as basically the same machine, the Zaku II. If we split them up then each page would be really frikkin' short, 'cause there's not too much to say about each design, really.

I vote we ditch the Gundam Project images, though. Use screenshots under the "fair use/review and identification" rule or use MAHQ as is done on some of the other Gundam-related pages... Mark Simmons can obviously draw but his design decisions in the Gundam Project images are (as a reference) questionable at best. The different Zakus are mainly style variations - so what good is it to provide a bunch of pictures that all look alike? There's a lot more difference between the F2 and the FZ than the GP images show, and the GP images toss out significant characterizing aspects of each design - you can't see that the FZ is meant to look larger and more brutish, or that the F2 is meant to incorporate bits of the FZ design and establish a new design direction without making major departures from the original Zaku.

What can we do about the formatting of the page? It's a real mess in the areas where there are too many images, like the MSV area. I couldn't find an easy solution.

63.106.93.177 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the only zaku units deserving of seprate pages are the rms-106 hizack series and the zaku III Jeffpiatt 02:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, out of interest, just where are you guys finding all the pictures for these gundam series pages?

You can find attribution information for most of the images on the images themselves. A lot of them were taken from Mark Simmons's inaccurate Gundam Project illustrations. Others were taken from MAHQ. If you're interested in getting a lot of good reference lineart for Gundam designs, I recommend buying a Gundam artbook, like the "Gundam Illustrated" MS Encyclopedia.

Having thought it all over I have some rather radical recommendations for this article. I don't feel right simply enacting these changes because that just results in an edit/reversion "war". Something like this needs to be discussed.

The article should be about what a Zaku really is. Not what it is in the story, but what it is in real life. It is, for instance, a design by Okawara (later adapted/redesigned by others) that served as one of the main adversaries in Gundam. It has been made into model kits, it has been featured in all kinds of anime, it's recognized enough in Japan to be worthy of parody, etc. It is not a giant war machine, there are not 20 variants of it in service, and it wasn't ever piloted by anybody, and nobody cares even about the difference between Zaku I and Zaku II, much less Zaku Kai, F2, Hi-Zack, etc. I think that information should be thrown out. Retained information should include when it was created, what it's appeared in, commentary on its role in merchandise, and basic information on what it represents in the story. And then, for in-depth information we link to another site like MAHQ. There are sites out there that have been built over years, collecting this interesting but very fictional data. They also tend to do a better job of filtering out bad data. So why replicate that on Wikipedia? Particularly when it's not really wanted on Wikipedia?

My idea of how the article should read might be something like this:

Zaku (Mobile Suit)

The Zaku is a fictional mobile suit featured in the Gundam anime meta-series. It was featured as one of the main protagonist machines in the original Mobile Suit Gundam show in 1979, and as a result is recognized as a "classic" of the anime mecha genre by many current fans.

(include, for identification, a picture of the original Zaku design. NOT frikkin' Gundam Project art...)

The original Zaku was designed by Kunio Okawara. (Include any known information about the inspirations for the design - commentary about how the use of an axe in particular identifies it as a sort of "uncivilized brute" in contrast with the Gundam's sword-wielding samurai look) The Zaku is perhaps the best example of Gundam's original real robot premise, (etc. etc...)

As the original Zaku was designed for the low-budget TV animation of 1979, numerous other Zaku-related designs were devised in the following decades as new Gundam productions were produced. These designs took advantage of the greater depth of detail available in these productions and explored new aesthetic directions for the design. (Possibly include the Hi-Zack, Zaku Kai, F2, and 08th MS Team redesign, which are IMO the most prominent direct-descendants of the Zaku, in chronological order. For each, include ONLY the name of the design and the show it appeared in.)

Links: MAHQ

The end. What do you think?

--63.106.93.177 22:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the information you provide seems to be based on observation (the 'uncivilized brute' bit is nice... if you can back it up with production notes...) while others are unnessesary assumptions (that Mobile Suit Gundam was particularily low-budgeted, for example, is a misconception.) Furthermore, the fact that people have proceded to describe the Zaku and its service in an 'in-universe' format, suggests that their coming across the article was due to their interest in the subject in that context. Rather than remove this lengthy bit of work, I would suggest trimming down what you suggest into one or two npov paragraphs as an introduction to the in-series stuff that follows.--KefkaTheClown 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, some of what I wrote was based mainly on my own perceptions. The important data there was my quick-draft concept of what the Zaku article should and should not be on Wikipedia. I think it should not be immersed into the fictional world, but rather a real-world perspective, a starting-point for people to find the resources that specialize in this data - such as MAHQ. There's no point in adding this information to the article, IMO the article is too long already. My proposal is an attempt to drastically reduce the article, and bring it in line with the extent to which I personally believe Wikipedia should document fictional entities.
The uncivilized brute thing, I can't back up, so unless someone could really back it up I guess it'd be no good for inclusion. I don't remember the source but I do remember that from Japanese perspective the axe is a distinctively barbaric weapon in contrast with the sword.
I am rather surprised that Gundam is not considered low-budget. As with the axe thing I don't remember the source but I know I heard that said of the original series...
--63.106.93.177 01:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, the impression I'm getting here is that to counter what you perceive to be an oversaturation of contextual information regarding the subject, you wish to instead replace that information with a completely different definition of the subject within a real-world context. Now, I'm not saying that pertinent information regarding the mechanical designer and so forth are unessesary, indeed this article needs to acknowledge that reality first and foremost. But removing the in-context exploits of the subject from the article ultimately diminishes the definitive power of said article. That is to say, I ultimately think that the user who looks up the Zaku II is looking for information that answers questions like 'who used it?' or 'how effective was it?' rather than 'who drew that thing?' or 'what link can I randomly click on to find the information Kefka things I'd be looking up?' Sure, those things are important, and deserve a place, but if forced to choose, I'd keep what's here already... Look to the TIE fighter, or Optimus Prime pages for examples of the 'in context' precident in action, further delving into any other fictional entity will almost uniformly produce similar results (idealy...)
As for those other qualities of brutishness, while it's true that the Zaku does evoke certain qualities in that regard, claiming that such an effect was intentional should be backed up. And I stand by my assertion that Gundam was not low-budgeted for its time, the series is old, to be sure, but animation was not held to the same standards and budget back then. --KefkaTheClown 06:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the statements about brutishness would need to be backed up. I've already acknowledged that. It seems neither of us is able to back up our opinions of Gundam's original budget, however. I'd like to verify my statement if I can.
As for comparisons with other fictional entities - TIE fighter, Optimus Prime, whatever - the existence of other fictional articles on Wikipedia with comparable material is not sufficient justification. One must first establish that the nature of those articles is appropriate for Wikipedia - it would be my opinion that that material is equally inappropriate for Wikipedia.
I do not propose the removal of all contextual information (or if I did, then perhaps I shouldn't have), just the vast reduction of trivia which is best suited to specialty sites. MSV and OVA variations are trivia. The existence of these variations may be worth mention but not worth exploration. Their inclusion could be seen as informative, but the volume of largely trivial information that's accumulated here is obscuring the more useful parts of the article. If people come here looking for detailed information on all the Zaku variants, we can easily shuttle them over to MAHQ, where they can get all the info they want.

--63.106.93.177 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?[edit]

Hi, most of the "Specifications" section seems to be a direct copyvio from [www.mahq.net/MECHA/GUNDAM/]. Is there justification for the use of the text? If not it’ll have to go. —porges(talk) 21:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With very few exceptions, the specifications provided by MAHQ are from official sources, typicaly inserts included with model kits, technical journals, setting notes and the like. MAHQ is, unfortunately, one of the few places where this information is presented in english... Even Bandai's official sites are somewhat lacking here. Perhaps someone should e-mail him and ask him about the specifics before we go deleting half the page. --KefkaTheClown 21:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorce of info?[edit]

I notice that 71.126.163.6 input massive information in this page, as well as other MS article. However, most of them were never heard before. While it's interesting, some are very fishy. I'm considering about remove them (Wikipedian Gundam-fan has quite bad name, due to fault info). But it will be better if you cite your source so we can check it. L-Zwei 06:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that he can't or don't want to share us about his source of info. Well, he might never look at talk page at all. So I would remove all of his fishy stuff.L-Zwei 13:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of standard Zaku[edit]

I just noticed that this article lacks a picture of standard MS-06F. Customized variants are nice, but a pic of normal Zaku is needed. Oh and not that I'm complaining, but the article is somewhat in-universe style. Pray that admin known as A Man In Black doesn't come here and delete everything. Erratic Communist 17:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my $0.02
i say that the page needs to be better organized with a general section explaining the real world impact of the design. and insert sub sections on each variation of the zaku II frame "in universe" with a picture of the verient to the right or left.Jeffpiatt 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
another sugesstion is that we use offical sources like www.gundamoffical.com when possible to standerdise stats. and only mahq.net for the msv units.

Done pic posted Hunter Darkwolf (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MS data[edit]

I think the problem we have is that the descriptions on mahq were meant for role playing game reference so some of the data was pulled from the models while some number on the site are calculated from watching the series. www.gundamofficial.com has some of the offical zaku data up i would verify there since it is data from the bandai kits it is hard to not copy verbatum the info since ever where uses the same info.Jeffpiatt 02:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed round type section[edit]

the orignal section described the Jc shown in 08th ms team not the old msv j type. both can fit in one section since the Jc is a sub class of the j type and it is implied that all zaku II's on earth are converted f-types to the j spec.

In Need of Improvements[edit]

This page is in dire need of some rewriting, and perhaps even a de-emphasis on the non-notable Zaku variants. Do we really need to have entire paragraphs about Dozle's or Garma's Zakus? Can't we simply lump them into a description of the basic Zaku, since the differences between them are mostly cosmetic? In addition, these pictures added throughout the article are a formatting nightmare... not to mention that there's no way in hell they count as fair use.

There needs to be a sizable section on the Zaku's real-life significance. Articles like this one are often AfD'd because they are all in-universe info and no real life info. It's only a matter of time before this article is nominated, and as it is right now, it may end up getting the axe despite its notability--there's no proof that it's notable. Maikeru 15:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

most of the images do need to be there to show how much the look of the zaku has changed. garmas is a sub class just like the 08th ms-team model of zaku is grama is an Fs type while the zaku in 08th jms team is the Jc type. we do need to expand the top para graph but right now this page seems to be a translation of the jp wiki pageJeffpiatt 13:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see, I can understand having a few pictures, that's totally fine and it helps give someone an idea of what the design looks like -- i.e. it's perfectly reasonable to include Okawara's original lineart as well as a couple of pictures of the really notable variants, as well as any pre-production material that exists (similar to the Gunboy lineart on the Gundam article. But a.) most of the variants aren't particularly notable to non-fans to begin with (and maybe even to actual fans), b.) said pictures can easily be found on other sources of information meant for fans (i.e. MAHQ), and c.) putting in pictures for every variant possible really borders on copyright violation. Maikeru 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many images do we really need to be able to show how the design changed? Do we need the Marine type, Dozle's Zaku, two images of the F2, four images of the Zaku Cannon, etc.? Does Action Zaku (a machine that has its own model number - it's not a Zaku II!) belong here? The key designs in the Zaku's evolution are the original Zaku, the Hi-Zack (the first Zaku redesign to be animated, which contributed a lot to the look of the Zakus that followed), the Zaku Kai and F2 (two early, prominent - and arguably, retroactive - redesigns of the Zaku), and the MG Zaku/08th MS Team Zaku design (which became the standard look for the original Zaku for roughly the next ten years.) And that's if you want to go in-depth. I don't think most of the information in this article is really relevant. I'd take out the Zabi customs and replace them with a sentence describing how various pilots, including various members of the Zabi family, had customized Zakus. There's no good reason for providing more information than that here. Zaku kai 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed spec section, please select handful of notable entries and add them later as infobox instead. L-Zwei 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaku lineage[edit]

Early on the article cites the "Olive Drab color scheme" as one of the common threads of Zaku (and zako) lineage in Gundam. But the original Zaku wasn't olive drab! It was a pale, almost bluish green. Olive tones for the Zaku came with the "Real Type" and MSV model kits later - and then were adopted by the Hi-Zack, Geara Doga, and the Zaku re-designs (Zaku Kai and F2) But suggesting this trait goes straight to the beginning is a bit misleading - and plainly contradicted by the vanilla Zaku reference images. Also, I think saying the Leo displays the Zaku aesthetic is a bit of a stretch. There's just about zero likeness there. Zaku kai 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and speaking of the lineage of the Zaku - I think the article should approach the subject of the Zaku's lineage from a real-world perspective. That is, it starts with Zaku (MS-06) and Old-Type Zaku (MS-05) in the original Gundam. Touch on the Hi-Zack in Zeta (which is a different machine, but which represents one of the first Zaku "redesigns" from a real-world perspective), discuss how the OVAs (0080 and 0083) did more or less retroactive redesigns (the Zakus in these shows are simply called "Zakus" - there's no attention given to the fact that they're different from the original Zaku and, apart from the opening of 0083, no visual indication that they are distinct from the original Zaku. The designs are notable in that they're not only redesigns like the Hi-Zack, but they actually are supposed to be considered more-or-less equivalent to the original, in terms of how they're treated in the story.), and then wind up the section with a discussion of the MG Zaku design and a little bit of what came beyond. (The MG design more-or-less authoritatively redefined the Zaku design for a while, with the new design appearing in 08th MST and games and so on. The Zaku design didn't start to move back toward the original style until around 2002, with the HGUC Zaku) 'Course, how do you write all that in Wikipedia without it being counted as original research? That seems like a tricky business - but it's real-world information at least, instead of all this backstory BS. I feel like this change, as I want to make it, cuts a bit deep into the article as it currently stands. The information that's there now about the -A, -C, -F, -FZ, and -F2 would be pre-empted by this and reduced a bit. I think the issue should be open to discussion for a bit before I go ahead with it. Zaku kai 18:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaku J type and Jc type[edit]

Originally, the MG Zaku design used in 08th MS Team was simply supposed to be the Zaku-J (as evidenced by the model kits of the time) - and the corresponding space-type, seen in episode 1, the Zaku-F. The Jc designation was introduced fairly recently, I remember, and to me, at least, it's not clear what defines a Zaku as a Jc type as opposed to a regular J type. It's possible that they wanted to distinguish the modern ground type Zakus from the original J-type of MSV - but I can't really understand why.

So let's say the 08th MS Team Groundtype Zakus (both the Okawara (ep 1-7) and Yamane (ep 8-11) designs) are all Jc-types. Using only that information you could say that the Jc type is the ground type Zaku that specifically looks like the Zakus in 08th. But the IGLOO Zakus are also designated as Jc types, and they have a couple very notable structural differences. (The IGLOO Zakus are mostly based on the Perfect Grade Zaku kit - you can see this especially in the body and arms - and when a Zaku foot is heavily damaged in one episode it looks exactly like the corresponding PG kit parts. But the IGLOO Zakus diverge from the PG design in the lower legs - which are slender and smooth, like the original Zaku's legs. They haven't got the big leg pods of the 08th MS Team Zakus.) So treating the Jc as if it's some particular visual style of ground type Zaku doesn't work - already there's two Jc types in animation that don't match.

As for stats - don't put too much faith in official stats, ever. They're inherently unreliable. The ones that don't contradict themselves often contradict each other. In the case of the Zaku J and Jc, the difference in stats (according to MAHQ, anyway) is an increase in maximum weight with a corresponding increase in thruster output. The stats for the Jc type's acceleration are the same.

Now, about the 08th MS Team Zakus: I had put that it wasn't clear what distinguishes a J-type from a Jc-type. Jeffpiatt replaced that statement, describing various specifics about the color and shape of the Zakus in 08th. I wound up erasing the whole thing for various reasons - I describe them here in the hope that we can all stay on friendly terms.  :)

"The Jc has slightly altered stats in the model kit and other official profiles." - This doesn't really tell people anything except that the stats are different (from the J-type, presumably - after Jeffpiatt's edit that wasn't really clear.) I felt this statement carried basically zero information. A new Zaku variant invented by Bandai is obviously going to have "altered stats", that's just what they do. The specific change - an increase in weight (the weight figures for the Jc-type actually match the FZ type, curiously...) and corresponding increase in thruster output (thus keeping the acceleration figure the same) - I consider so trivial that it's not worth listing - unless we want to start building up a discussion of the real-world process with which Bandai, Sunrise, and others are synthesizing these stats. I can only guess that the reason for the change was to account for the obvious differences in bulk between the original Zaku and the 08th MS Team version, while keeping the performance figure the same. But then the IGLOO version seems to contradict that, confusing the issue again.

"The units shown to be operating in the South-East Asia area (setting of 08th MS Team) are given a darker green color and a set of spikes on their shoulder shields. ... Other units shown from Odessa and other areas look like the classic J-type with only minor changes in appearance." - (Not an exact quote - I corrected capitalization and spelling here) First off, the spiked shields are seen only in the show's opening, not in the show itself. Second, even if you consider the ep. 1-7 Zakus to be all "native" Zakus, how do you justify a claim that all Zakus seen from ep. 8 onwards are imported from other fronts? Yes, there were a lot of Zeon troops incoming - but did that base somehow lose every last one of its Zakus, so that every Zaku that appeared in the base was from Odessa or somewhere else? And this still doesn't tell us anything about what makes a Jc-type a Jc-type and not a J-type. Oh, and finally, the "classic J-type" looks nothing like any Zaku seen in 08th MS Team. The "classic J-type" (dating back to the 1980s) looks exactly like every Zaku seen in the original 1979 animation. There is a very big difference. I feel that these stylistic differences should be treated as trivial matters of the show's production. We can't rely on them to infer information about the backstory. After all, none of this applies to the (Jc-type) Zakus seen in IGLOO.

"it is implied that the units in that front were modified to better handle the Federation ms being Field tested in the area" - You need a citation for that one. I don't remember any such implication being made in the anime. As with 0080 and 0083 the fact that the Zakus being seen around them differ from the Zakus seen in the original show is apparently unknown to the characters.

I understand that the edit was an earnest attempt to improve my comment about the Jc-type, and I feel like it's a little unfriendly to completely revert such an edit but I think my reasons for doing so were right. Zaku kai 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I shot down your changes again. Again, the spikes weren't in the anime, just the OP. People can see the color changes in the lineart we've provided, so we don't need to enumerate that stuff in the text too. The thing I said about the Jc designation being introduced so the stats could reflect the increased bulk of the 08th MS Team version - that was just a guess, and it's still contradicted by IGLOO if the Zakus in IGLOO are Jc's. And the Jc stats don't show an increase in acceleration, they show the same acceleration but greater thruster output. And to further confuse the issue of stats: note that all the HGUC Zakus have the same stats as the IGLOO version of the HGUC Zaku - the 97.6kW and 56.2 metric tons of weight we attribute to the Jc variant - we can't establish that there's a difference in the stats if we can't establish the stats are consistent to begin with. And even though I'm correct that the IGLOO Zaku design (or, rather, about 70% of it) is taken straight from the Perfect Grade kit, it's considered original research here - we can't use it. (And it is especially meaningless in that this article doesn't discuss the model kits and how their designs draw from and contribute to the anime designs) Not that it has any real relevance anyway.
Thing is, the section's about the J-type Zaku, and the Jc-type classification that's somehow related but somehow distinct. Telling people about a few of the differences in the 08th MS Team design, or what particular units were painted in desert colors - it's just not relevant. Shield spikes are a curious addition, but what makes them important enough to be worth mention? Any unit could be painted in desert colors. That might be done, say, if it were operating in the desert. It's just paint, it has nothing to do with the machine underneath. People can see these things for themselves in the lineart. It's not like it's specifically wrong to mention these kinds of things in the article but what I'm going for is a good signal:noise ratio. I want the text that's in the article to be good text, very useful and meaningful text. Any trivia or apocrypha that we add to the article makes the article longer, and more boring to read, without increasing the value of the article as a whole. I want the article to focus on the important aspects of the subject. If you disagree with things that I say please discuss them here rather than putting your reactions into the article. Zaku kai 20:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and so do i it is worth noteing that the zaku has bean in a flux since the 1979 line art was used it helps show how significent the unit was. my aditions nee clan up but removing entire paragraphs because you think they are too insignificant is just a bad idea a good explation needs to be there why each unit is mentioned.Jeffpiatt 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good god, get a spellchecker.
I am removing paragraphs because they are irrelevant to the Zaku. How many ships Char shot down at Loum doesn't tell people anything about the Zaku. It tells them about Char, it tells them about Loum, it tells them next to nothing about the Zaku. And yet this piece of information appeared not just once in this article but twice - once under MS-06C and once under MS-06S. It also appears in the "One Year War" article (linked in the MS-06C section) and the "Char Aznable" article (linked in both MS-06C section and MS-06S). If people want to know about what Char did to earn that notoriety at Loum, they can follow the links.
And not all these units should be mentioned. This article has way too much extraneous information already. If you want to keep this stuff, explain why. Make a good case of it. What's the value in saying the Zaku Kai's Heat Hawk is pretty much the same as the regular Zaku's heat hawk, for instance? Isn't that a safe assumption? Zaku kai 03:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I have to break your link because the spam filter won't let me edit the page otherwise! Signed: "Zaku Kai"

http://z11.invision free.com/Gundam_Evolution/index.php?showtopic=1370 Jeffpiatt 21:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the information - but the source is questionable (looks like some random Gundam fans on a message board) - English-speaking Gundam fans tend to get all their data from the same places: MAHQ, Wikipedia, Gundam Official, Mark Simmons, and indirectly from each other.
Granted, a lot of what's being said doesn't need much in the way of citation - to say that the 08th MS Team version has different colors - OK, fine. But to say that the Jc designation specifically refers to what was seen in the 08th MS Team anime - well, that's the whole issue here. Does it?
MAHQ lists the IGLOO groundtypes as Jc-types, which would seem to contradict that. Is that an error on MAHQ's part? I suppose that's possible, too. If we really can establish that's the case, then I think that accepting the "Jc-type" designation to mean "J-type Zaku seen in 08th MS Team" is sensible. However, I still don't think it's worth writing out all the differences we can observe in the lineart for the 08th MS Team Zaku: we've got the image, people can look and see for themselves what's different about this Zaku. If we interpret the differences we observe between the Zaku linearts, that may be considered "Original Research". I don't think we can be too pedantic about OR - take it too far, and you have to avoid even the most obvious observations... But the article gains nothing from having us make these interpretations for the reader - it's just one more "fact" in an article with too many extraneous (or even incorrect) facts already - and it's a piece of information whose truth depends largely on one's point of view. (Specifically - does one accept 08th MS Team's suggestion that all Zakus looked like that? Or do we accept the current Bandai party line, that this particular Zaku design was just a brief blip in the history of the machine?) At most we should maybe mention that the shield spikes seen in the lineart weren't used in the anime. Zaku kai 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the section in question - Until we have a reference that says the IGLOO groundtypes were Jc-types, I think they should be referred to simply as "MS IGLOO Groundtype Zakus" - not specifically call them "J-Types" or "Jc-Types" unless we have an official line on what that designation really should be. (The IGLOO site doesn't say, as far as I can tell - and neither do the IGLOO-version HGUC Zakus. The only source I know of that specifies that IGLOO Zakus are Jc-Type is MAHQ - and they could be wrong. MAHQ's standards for inclusion of information are pretty good, but they're not infallible.) But at the same time, I tried to phrase it such that the text avoids making inappropriate conclusions - I think concluding that the Jc-type refers specifically to the 08th MS Team design is inappropriate, likewise I now feel that my earlier statement (in the article) that it is "unclear what defines the Jc-type" may also be inappropriate. (It's kind of a judgmental statement, you could say.) Both represent sensible conclusions based on the available data - but not necessarily correct or verifiable conclusions...
I think the bit about the groundtype Zakus performing badly in space is pretty useless - the article already says that ground-type Zakus lacked space gear... Why would anyone think they perform well in space? So, I removed that bit. Let people be surprised when they see that scene in the anime. Zaku kai 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.08ms-team.net/ms/zeon.html This link was posted by Mark simmons in the thread above with The offical profile of the Zaku II Jc type they droped the shield reference but listed that field upgrades that set this apart from normal JC types hers the post From Mark

"Aside from the apocryphal shoulder spikes, the profile on the official Japanese 08th MS Team site says that the main differences between the standard J type and the JC type seen in 08th MS Team are the simplified cockpit hatch and the winch system for lowering the pilot to the ground. In other words, just the obvious changes seen in the animation, and the cockpit hatch is present in the space versions seen in the opening episode as well. Does that make them "FC types", or just plain old C types?

As for the Zaku Cannon, its huge backpack and fancy shoulder cannon have since been incorporated into the MS-09K-1 Dom Cannon. So, retroactively speaking, this is actually a modified Zaku with a Dom Cannon backpack.

-- Mark" from: http://z11.invision free.com/Gundam_Evolution/index.php?s=e78d8e02cb07f7114d574c80fa670a36&showtopic=1370&st=0&#entry6804832 Jeffpiatt 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept the 08ms-team.net citation (we should really put that citation in proper citation format, however - I think it's supposed to be footnoted or something... and for further convenience we could cite gundamofficial instead...) - though you'll notice I edited it. Here's why.
First off, I don't want to have a separate Jc section because the article has too many sections already. The J-type and Jc-type sections are very closely related, of course, and particularly in light of the fact that the Jc designation is a retcon (and additionally because it is a variant of the J-type) I think it belongs in the J-type section. The point of sections is to divide large sections of text, to make it easy to jump to a particular bit of data, and to make it easy to see what a particular block of text relates to. Subdividing too far introduces clutter to the index and the text itself, and doesn't add value, because the text you're splitting up isn't large enough or diverse enough in subject to benefit from the division.
Second, while I am satisfied that the citation provides good, solid information about what defines the Jc-type, there's no point in going into every little detail about it. For this reason, I edited for brevity while trying to keep the useful, relevant information intact. (I found this to be very difficult. It's easy to write reams of text, and it's easy to just edit out the Jc-type altogether, to ignore it - it's hard to present the Jc-type concisely, in a way that reads well without weighing the article down.) I did edit out the fact that the altered cockpit hatch provides a crane. It's true information, but it's just not that important.
Third, I think you have a habit of writing your edits as rebuttals to mine, as if to say "it does so have shoulder spikes, here's why!" I mean, clearly we're not in agreement here, but bear in mind that the end result here is supposed to be a coherent article - so keep arguments here, in discussion. Support the data in the article with citations, but don't cite the hell out of things, you know? One good citation is enough to establish that the Jc-type officially has shoulder spikes, despite the fact that they weren't in the anime. (Honestly, I'm now feeling divided on whether it's even worth mentioning that the Jc designation is a retcon, or that the shield spikes weren't in the anime. Does it matter? It is possible that I've favored my own irrelevant additions too highly.  :) )
Finally, there's not much point in referring to toy lines or model lines for authoritative information about what defines a particular machines in a visual sense. Practically every single one of those new products reinvents the design - so saying "The J-type has shield spikes because HCM-Pro says so" - it's a bit ridiculous. It's like saying "Char's Zaku has five verniers in the lower leg, because the new MG Char's Zaku has 'em". Really, the data you collect from that kit is only relevant to the kit itself, and its own brand-new depiction of the machine.
I implore you to at least use a spell-checker. Making sloppy edits is a bit inconsiderate - it puts the burden on others to clean up your mess, and it leaves the article looking sloppy until someone does come along to fix it. I recognize that a spell checker won't solve everything, (for starters, "witch" won't get caught by a spellchecker, nor capitalization mistakes like "sunrise", "ova", or "the most Recent"...) but in lieu of education, it's a very easy way to solve a lot of the problems you introduce whenever you add text to the article. If you don't care about issues like this, then you have no business writing articles for an encyclopedia, and you're better off making your contributions indirectly. Zaku kai 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Hi-Zack[edit]

OK, to be fair, most of what I know about obscure Zaku variants I learned from MAHQ. I dare say that's pretty common among English-speaking fans. Now, just where does the name "Marine Hi-Zack" come from? I've never heard of it, MAHQ doesn't list it, and it makes no sense to refer to the MS-06M as any kind of "Hi-Zack". It seems a bit extraneous in any case - what's this "remodeling" the feds did to it. Is that anything like a "paint job"? If so, that hardly constitutes a distinct Zaku variation meriting its own subsection, image, etc. Zaku kai 04:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it - the Zeta Gundam version of the MSM-01 kit is labeled "Marine Hi-Zack".. Omoshiroi... Disregard the above. Zaku kai 04:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

most of the info i added was from the jp version of wikipedia i was working on moving away from the mahq info since it contains errors.Jeffpiatt 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is infallible, right? Or is it infallible because it's written by native Japanese speakers? I think it's entirely possible MAHQ does contain errors, but I have a lot more confidence in it than a Gundam article on Wikipedia... But this is why Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on verifiable information from real sources.
I need a citation for this bit: "From what is depicted in the animation and offical sources additional units were produced after the war using RMS-106 Hi-Zack frames as the base." - what official sources? At what point in the anime do they depict a marine version of the Zaku II being built with a Hi-Zack as the base? And if it is a Hi-Zack variant, it's no longer a Zaku II variant and doesn't belong here IMO... My first guess would be that the anime depicted no such thing, that the "official sources" are the model kit, and that the model kit's description of this thing as a "Marine Hi-Zack" was a mistake and/or has been retconned away by now. Zaku kai 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
according to mark simmons the episode shows more msm-01 units than were left after the war and the in episode refures to them as Marine Hi-Zack's. the translation of the linked Jp wiki gives that discription to the model we need to check there sources. also the merine zaku has an Rms model number but is related to both lines since the setting notes for ZZ gundam mention that it was intended to be a refit of the Hi-mo zaku II or a Mission pack for the Zaku III.66.246.246.50 04:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn to spell.
An RMS model number just means that the Federation decided to use it. It doesn't imply a tie to the Hi-Zack.
Mark may very well be correct - To be able to cite his research, though, it has to be published somewhere. Archives of Gundam Project may be adequate, I'm not sure. Also note that the fact that more Marine Zakus were produced after the war does not imply that Hi-Zacks were used as the basis for these. Neither does the (possibly erroneous or apocryphal) "Marine Hi-Zack" designation. With the obvious visual contradiction there, we ought to be sure if we're going to say it was not only called a Hi-Zack, but in fact actually was a Hi-Zack. Zaku kai 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dra-C: Is it a Zaku?[edit]

I wonder if the Dra-C profile should be a part of this page. If the answer is "yes", the reason should be a better one than "because the Dra-C page got deleted"

Arguments in favor: The machine is visibly related to the Zaku F2. Backstory is that it was built from Zaku parts.

Arguments against: The machine is not a Zaku. It has a different (non-MS-06) model number. It's not a particularly notable machine (It appeared in 0083 and the Zeta movies - that's about the extent of its notability).

Personally I'd say there doesn't need to be Dra-C information on Wikipedia at all. (I'd say the same of the Stutzer, for that matter...) It plays an incredibly small part in Gundam - the machine wouldn't merit an article of its own and it doesn't really belong here, either. It's trivia, basically. And trivia is fun stuff - but that's why we have sites like Gundamofficial and MAHQ - or Gundam Wiki for that matter. Zaku kai 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the Dra-c is a zaku Verient/decendent it's a F@ torso and arms mounted to a gattle space frame. it fits with the zaku tank as a field mod to the zaku II 66.246.246.50 03:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if even the Zaku Tank deserves mention, but I do think the Dra-C could be removed without much hassle. It appeared in-series, but... How often, really? Unlike the other stuff in 0083 I honestly cannot remember when it first appeared on-screen -- in the last episodes or what? Maikeru 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the zaku tank was used in at lest two gundam series and the dra-c was the seciond most used grunt in 0083.Jeffpiatt 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that the Dra-C should be considered a Zaku. Is the Apsalus a Zaku because it has a Zaku head and feet? No, it's pretty much an unrelated machine that uses a couple Zaku parts. The Dra-C isn't called a Zaku, it doesn't have the distinctive Zaku features, it doesn't use Zaku weapons, it doesn't have a Zaku model number - the (fictional and real-world) creators of that MS classified it as a different machine.
And calling the Dra-C the "seciond most used grunt in 0083" is a bit of a stretch, even if I assume you meant Zeon grunt, so as to exclude the GM. First would be, I guess, the Zaku. But then the Gelgoog Marine has a pretty strong showing thanks to the Cima fleet, and other units, like the Dom variants, were also quite central to the action.
But, so what? A few Dra-C's happen to appear in 0083, and maybe they do rank as the "seciond most used grunt in 0083". And maybe the Zaku Tank did appear in two, maybe even three Gundam series. So what? How does that make them relevant enough to merit an entire section of the article? The relevant facts, specifically that these variations do exist, can be boiled down to a sentence. "Multiple variations of the Zaku were produced for the MSV series and for various shows, including a version with tank treads, a space-fighter version with fuel tanks in place of the legs, amphibious models, and so on." The relevant pieces of data - the proliferation of Zaku variants used to continue the Zaku theme, and the fact that this demonstrates the Zaku's longevity within the series, all can be expressed quite briefly. Details such as the series in which the variants appeared, the factions that used them, the fabricated performance specs, all the various model numbers and designations assigned to the unit, trivia about different design changes made for different anime - it adds very little value. Bear in mind that the article cannot, and should not, be exhaustive. From a reader's perspective, the more unnecessary information is added to the article, the more it weakens what should be the core of this article - the description of what a Zaku is, and why that's significant.
P.S.: Mozilla Firefox has a lovely built-in spell checker. It's not a sign of weakness to take advantage of it. Zaku kai 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dra-c was folded in to this article during the great gundam purge so in order to keep all of this info up it was merged in to this article. i truly don't want to remove entire sections unless we can give them there own home. it was put here since it is a Zaku II mounted to space bomber derived thrusters for legs it fits with the zaku tank as a unit of desperation. it helps to explain how this unit appears in each gundam story in each form. I think we could add some of the msv units that don't show up on any form beyond model kits to the MSV Article. Jeffpiatt 03:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was likely deleted for a reason, that being that it's a non-notable design in the Gundam universe. I disagree with several of the deletions, but in this case I'd say it deserves to be deleted. It certainly doesn't deserve its own section and paragraph -- if anything it deserves a minor mention along with the Zaku Tank within a description of the Zaku II itself as examples of makeshift field modifications. There are other sites where fans can get more detailed information about those variants which don't merit much description here but, seeing as Wikipedia tries to cater less to fans and more to non-fans looking for the most useful and most notable information on a subject (hence the hoopla about cruft), I think that as a whole the Gundam articles need to avoid going into excessive detail on every single variant of a single Mobile Suit, lest someone AfD them again. If that occurs and, wow, no progress has been made, they will be deleted. With the Zaku article, as tough as it is, there needs to be some sort of criterion as to what constitutes a noteworthy variation. Maikeru 04:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we have the action zaku in here and it only get on episode in zeta The dra-c shows up inn the entire later half of 0083 both are diffrent model number than the Zaku II but both are splinter to the model line.Jeffpiatt 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the phrase "Other Crap Exists"? The fact that other crap exists doesn't mean more crap should exist. Your argument is based on the assumption that the Action Zaku should be kept in the article - that's not something you can take for granted. This article needs to lose some dead weight. Zaku kai 21:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Zaku Kai said, you're under the assumption that the Act Zaku would be included as anything more than a footnote in the description of the Zaku's role in the plot. As it is, I honestly think a mention in a description of the Zaku II's in-universe role as an example of how there were attempts to revise the Zaku to be equal or superior to its eventual successors as the main frontline forces of Zeon would be sufficient for that particular variant. A lot of these variants either do not merit any mention whatsoever, or a much lesser description than they are currently given. Maikeru 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup[edit]

I have a question the tags that removed a ton of images were reset should we replace some of the images or just remove the tags.?Gundam x105 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Makaku[edit]

I've found a colored picture of the Zaku Tank Green Makaku. I believe this pic would be better to put up on the article than the non-colored one. Here's the picture - http://www.angelfire.com/anime2/zeonbase/suit90.html i replaced the old mahq image with this one it was used on mahq at one time. the images need to be there to help explain the changes in look over the years. if anything the improved ground type image cAN GO IT'S NEVER BEEN ANIMATED.Gundam x105 00:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how showing all these variants helps explain the change in its appearance, since these are 99% Kunio Okawara's artwork from 1983 to 1985. That's not exactly a change in appearance. If that's really what you're going for, I would think that you could get rid of a number of the other variant pictures lying around and find a free image of, for example, the Katoki Hajime version of the Zaku (i.e. the Zaku from 0083). If anything, it seems to be an attempt to turn this article in a big list of crap that people don't really need to know about, with illustrations that they similarly don't really need to get the gist of what a Zaku is; the only people who would really care about all these variations are the people who would know where 99% of the images in this article come from (MAHQ and Mark Simmons' old fanart from the Gundam Project). Maikeru 05:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the only images we need are the ones designed for the anime, the MSG Zaku by Okawara is a lot different from the one he did in 08th MS team, while the 0080 Zaku FZ is desgined by Izubuchi and 0083 and most of the model designs are from Katoki and can actually show more different from the origin. The Zaku stutzer might stay, too since it is radically different design. For the others, I really don't think they are notable enough to get their own image, it is just not worth it. Also, we might as well just merge the MS-05 Zaku, RMS-106 Hi-Zack and Zaku III over here are rename this article Zaku instead. MythSearchertalk 05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaku or ZAKU

With some discussion and the fact that most mobile suits in the UC are acronyms (including GUNDAM there has been some discussion to wether or not ZAKU is an acronym. If indeed Zaku is an acronym it is speculated that it stands for, Zeonic Armoured Kombat Unit. Anyone who can verify or disband this theory is welcome to coment

Zaku. It is not an acronym for sure. Both Gundamofficial.com and Gundam Officials do not have this theory and the GUNDAM acronym is place right in front in the Yomino introduction in Gundam Officials. I have no idea where did you get the "fact" that most MS names in UC are arconyms, since they are not. All I can think of is GUNDAM and ALEX, and all of them are on the EFF side. MythSearchertalk 06:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and Development[edit]

Ok, who tagged that part as in-universe? That is like the least in-universe part in the whole article and nothing in the plot is mentioned at all. The begining gave the name's oirgin and then the section followed the real-life modeling development, appearance and redesigns in different series and ended with newer models in later series(and I have sourced that as well with the edit of taking away the tag). Can anyone explain to me why is it in-universe in what sense? MythSearchertalk 02:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess it's really a vandalism, they just put tag without reading. Well, since it's hard to tell until now, these vandal do prove how badly written our articles are. L-Zwei 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I did not actually read the articles until I edit them ;P (well, at least I know they are pretty bad to begin with) MythSearchertalk 07:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaku Kai "Originally conceived as a recon type"?[edit]

I don't have the kind of insider information (nor quite the level of Japanese skill required) that would allow me to prove or disprove that bit of information... I'd never heard of such a thing... May I ask, where did that bit of information come from? Is it really true? If so, that's pretty interesting to me... Zaku kai 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dengeki Magazine" citations...[edit]

There are a lot of magazines called "Dengeki"... I think the citations are supposed to refer to Dengeki Hobby Magazine... am I right?? Zaku kai 23:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess I typed in Dengeki Hobby in some other article's heading, then used Dengeki as a short form and forgot that I have not used the full form here. MythSearchertalk 03:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Saku" parody?[edit]

I've never heard of it, and the section is very badly written... What the hell is a "katajina sign"? Does it turn up as a blind beggar in the last episode of Victory?

Actually, I can think of one case in which I've heard of a Zaku parody called "Saku" - that was in the Gundam-themed condoms. I propose deleting the section unless it can be cleaned up and substantiated... Zaku kai (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Saku appears in a joke comic in Gundam ACE, and it is a hidden unit in Gundam Battle Royale and Gundam Battle Chronicles. Both games got both the green and the red version.(yet they don't have the further versions like the blue gouf parody and such.) I guess it is the Katakana sign though. see head katakana Zi also, see Gundam Battle video as a source (yes, the annoying bobobobo is really the sound effect of the unit walking.) better video showing the EF's Samu as well. MythSearchertalk 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's cute, but does this thing really merit inclusion in the article? Zaku kai (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is at least more notable than 60% of the variants mentioned here. Itself creates the notability of Zaku(in which the Saku shows that Zaku is indeed having its cultural significance that people starts to create parody of it and official adorts it in official publication) In fact, サク サム(saku samu) got a google result of 119000(It is not possible to search on their own since saku is a part of sakura which will return a lot of useless result). It is not just being cute(In fact, I find it quite annoying) it is quite notable. MythSearchertalk 19:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is completely off[edit]

This whole page needs re done Hunter Darkwolf (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pic isn't staying[edit]

The pic won't stay Hunter Darkwolf (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MS-06 Zaku II. 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:

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) 00:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 September 2017[edit]

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 DrStrauss talk 17:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:COMMONNAME, everyone just calls it the "Zaku", not the "MS-06 Zaku II". The disambiguation currently at that location should be made into a hatnote or moved to Zaku (disambiguation). The video game and the person are not nearly as prominent in the cultural zeitgeist, if at all. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting comment - I've restyled this as a multimove, including the dab page.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zaku&oldid=1206132486"