Talk:Gunpla

Perfect Grade and possibly more.

I have to do an assignment for my technical writing course and I was hoping to use this article for that assignment. My hopes are to expand on some sections within the page. The Perfect Grade (PG) section within the 1/60 scale area. I think this section could do with more information as the PG line is usually referred to as the luxury liner of Bandai models. I think including the common features they share like lighting gimmicks as well as the increase in detail in the stickers included as well as the model itself. I will need a 2500 bytes in changes so I may expand some other sections as well. Things like the SD section has some information that is incomplete. -LandonWade

Scale

The use of model scales for describing fantasy robots is pretty much useless unless you are a fan who knows how big the fictional robot is supposed to be. Can someone include a description of how large the various models are?

-J

This is now as done as it can be. Since the fictional robots are different sizes, the models will differ, but I've added the comparative sizes of every scale of the same model (RX-78) and a past editor included the general size ranges.Gravislizard (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Topic Merge

I'd like to request that the topic Gunpla Grade be merged with this one. E Wing 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think it should be merged, since Gunpla is Gundam + Plastic, which means gundam models. 66.183.215.186 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutly agree wholheartedly. The two pages are near mirrors of each other as it is- the information from both should be compiled into a single page.

Merge please, basically it's the same thing. (75.157.190.68 (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

So who wants to do the merge? CABAL (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Merged contents from the articles Gunpla Grade and List of High Grade Universal Century to this one. I request a review to the merge and comparison of this article to the original source articles. If successful I then request for the deletion of the two aforementioned articles. Thanks! E Wing (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

First Grade?

The very first kits, now 20 years and routinely re-released by Bandai. These kits, when completed, had a very poor range of motion which rendered them almost unposeable. In addition, adhesives and paint were necessities, not options. Although not called as such back then, these models were retroactively categorized as FG (First Grade).

I believe these kits can't be called "First Grade" since there are only 3 kits labeled as "FG" (First Grade itself). These kits are the RX-78-2 'Gundam', MS-06 Zaku-2 and MS-06S Zaku-2 Char Custom, of 1/144 scale and with integrated joints, are produced in year 1990 (content verifiable from the Bandai Gundam Catalog 2004). All other 1/144 kits are referred to as "1/144" only. E Wing 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, they need to be categorized somehow. Any ideas? CABAL 17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a single category called "1/144" be made to generalize this category, afterwards any other grades of 1/144 scale be placed under here. E Wing 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea that can be extended further. The main categories can be the scale values, and by extension we can fit other things like EX Model kits under them. CABAL 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My experience on Gundamshop's modelling board has been that these older kits are most commonly referred to as Low-grade (LG) or no-grade kits. I'm in agreement that the FG designation really isn't used all that commonly, but as there isn't any "official" term, it may be the best option to simply include a couple of the more common labels used to describe them Shogun221 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a first level classing by scale than a second level classing by grade? Sort of to make E Wing's suggestion uniform throughout the whole article. Or you can follow the japanese article that classifies them under "old kits"(旧キット). Iron2000 05:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that my first statement is true and the Gundam 00 series is the second series to produce an FG line (although these first kits are not labeled as such). On the 2004-2005 Gunpla Catalog, the FG line is placed between the PGs and the (very) first kits from Mobile Suit Gundam (which can be classified as "no-grade" kits). I'll post the picture of the said catalog after I've found it. E Wing 11:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Gundam 00 No Grade

I think it should be added since the 1/100 GN-001 Gundam Exia has been released to the public for a while. I checked around the box at the local hobby shop and no grade ID has been labeled, possibly like SEED's 1/100 models? 66.183.215.186 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Scale Classification

Just done with re-arranging the kits into their specific scales and kit categories, also re-written and added some. Please note that this is still unfinished. E Wing 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Extra finish version

I don't think it would be classfied under MG since SEED Destiny #10 Force Impulse w/ sword silhouette Extra Finish Version is HG. 64.180.187.24 (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually not. The there are 2 MG kits as Extra-Finish version: the Freedom Gundam and the Gyan. Also, the Force Impulse + Sword Silhouette is not an HG but an ungraded 1/100. E Wing (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

there have been a large number of extra finish version models, that is simply the label bandai uses whenever a standard release is issued with chrome plating. It does not constitute a separate line, as these are exclusively limited edition re-releases.

Yes, it could be a limited version of a certain kit, but the chrome parts of extra finish kits tend to be more glossier than an ordinary chrome-finish kit. E Wing (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The extra finish designation is not specific to the MG series. There have been multiple extra finish HGUC models as well, including the Gouf and Quebelly Mk IIs. Further, most of the specially designated MGs are one offs, specific only to the model listed. An example is the full blast Strike Freedom, which is simply a standard Strike Freedom with bonus parts- this does not consitute it's own line, and should be seen more akin to a 'first eidition' designation. "special" MGs are too limited in scope (usaully a handfull of versions at best) and too diverse (there is a new designation for each special edition model, rendering each of these designations moot) for each to be given a special section, and should be given a single seperate section to cover all of them. I.E., "many special edition varients exist, featuring gimicks such as crystal version clear parts, or full chrome parts, ect." 2:54, 27 March 2008

Figures: include or not

Is it possible/ok to include information about Gundam figures (GFF, AMSiA, MSiA, Jumbo Grade, etc.) and integrate them to the model kits' scale classification? E Wing (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently, I'd say that there are enough action figure lines for them to feature a seperate page, but that seperate page should include all action figure lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neolordmaxwell (talk • contribs) 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

MG line-up expansion

I just added the ver. Ka line to the MG list. Can somebody please expand it and also add the ver. 1.5, 2.0, and the HD variants? Thanks. E Wing (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Influences on culture

My main suggestion is that perhaps a mention about how "Gunpla" is in the anime, Keroro Gunso. Anyone else care to add anything? =3 Krazywrath~ (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1:1 model

Shouldn't this article mention the new 1:1 model? [1] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, its not a model. Its just a 1:1 replica/statue. E Wing (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

metallic coating(?)/mechnical detail

Should metallic coating(?) and mechnical detail be include in the artcle? User:C93310305:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be included. E Wing (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

High Grade EX

The entry states that there have been only three High Grade EX kits, but makes no mention of the 1995 1/60 Wing Gundam Zero. I'm not sure if the Wing Gundam Zero box had the High Grade EX shield, it probably didn't, but it had similar characteristics to the three earlier ones:

• 1/60 size
• extensive details
• light gimmick
• articulated fingers

Could it be that Bandai killed off the High Grade EX line while the 1/60 model was in the works and released it anyways?

Box image manual image 1 manual image 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.129 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The specific "grades" of a kit is always identified by a logo on the box itself. If a kit has no grade label then it is usually called as "non-graded". As for the characteristics it is always shared by a number of other 1:60 kits, particularly the lighting ed., some PGs, and the HY2M Glorious series. As to whether did Bandai killed off the HGEX line, it could be since they also killed off the HG 1:100 line but still continuing that scale (and also the 1:60) with the same/similar characteristics from the previous ones.E Wing (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Article issue

I must say that this article became a disgustingly bad one. It is currently over organized into fine categories of every single product line's trivial like a commercial ad and is really not helping the reader understand the overall product's notability. These kind of articles attracts deletionists, and something must be done to stop this. If this is AfDed, we have no defence at all. The current single 3rd party reliable sources is number 5(blogs are not reliable and hlj, the company, is not independent 3rd party). I propose to delete all of the product line descriptions and keep it simple, talk only about the main products that appear dominantly in model magazines, that are the HG/RG 1/144, MG 1/100 and PG 1/60, and only mention briefly on the other scales in like one single sentence. In fact, this topic is rather notable if correct sources can be found, there are numerous TV shows that visited the Gunpla factory, numerous model magazines that teaches modeling of Gunpla and even TV shows that teach how to build plastic models extensively show the modelers building Gunpla. The article need a major revamp if it wants to survive any longer. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Good news, User:Mythsearcher and User:Shogun221, ten years later someone (me) finally got around to it. It's surprising the whole page didn't get deleted already, but hopefully it's safe now.Gravislizard (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with most of Mythsearcher's points. This article can not, and should not, be a repository to list every Gundam model line, every scale used, every type of special edition made, etc. Over time this article has become riddled with lists, trivia and redundancies. Readers trying to learn about Gunpla through this entry are going to find it a poor resource.

I am recommending the following changes:

- The article should be organized by grade rather than scale e.g.(ungraded, SG/FG/EG, HG, MG, PG, RG). Organizing model kits by scale is not intuitive. Categories should be based upon groups that have common characteristics. What, aside from scale, does a 1/144 kit from 1980 have in common with a 1/144 HGUC kit from 2011? So much variation exists underneath each scale, that the same thing is said multiple times in the article in order to be comprehensive. Grades, on the other hand, are a (reasonably) stable unit of organization, since Bandai does not invent a new one every year, and kits under each grade have enough commonalities that you can write useful and comprehensive information about them without being redundant.

- Rather than attempt to list all the product lines, I would suggest using more general statements. Something along the lines of "Bandai tends to release model lines to coincide with a manga or animation they produce, however they also have long-running model lines that cover specific eras, types of mecha etc."

- The history is a nice addition, but there is a lot of trivia in there. I recommend trimming this down to focus on the evolution of Gundam models from paint/cement/glue them yourself kits to highly articulated snap-together figures. I would omit information on one-off kits, special editions, or "innovations" that did not make it into technology Bandai currently uses in their kits.

- As Mythsearcher said, we need more sources and more citations. I wish I was a person who could provide this, but unfortunately I'm not... - Another addition that I would be of no help myself to contribute would be about the fandom itself. Talking about Gundam-specific modeling contests, sites,etc something that indicates a cultural impact... Shogun221 (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

School assignment

Hey, I need to edit a Wikipedia assignment for class. I was hoping to work on this assignment. I see the 1/110 RE line has very little information on it and I hope on expanding that section. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LandonWade (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Large copyedit

I rewrote a significant portion of this article because I found it very hard to read and not very encyclopedic. It still falls short of the mark, but I've added several citations to support assertions that I felt were not supported by the few that were already in place. Due to the nature of Gunpla as a largely Japanese hobby, it's difficult to find high quality citations in English, so I'm still working on improving that element.

With no offense intended to anyone who has worked on this article before, as an encyclopedia article it is not very helpful to a newcomer or for the purpose of casually discussing the hobby. Easily 75% of the article's content is trivia (when specific lines were introduced, which models are in which line, etc) rather than broad descriptions of the models themselves or the hobby around them. In my opinion, much of this info should be moved into a "Lines & Models" master section, and the remaining skeleton of the article should be reworked to give better summaries of the concepts.

Also, I feel the scales/grades section should not be merged as it is. Scales are not tightly coupled to grades, and based on my experience speaking to gunpla builders, grades are the primary categorization used in most contexts. I think it should be reorganized into sections by grade, with the scales common to each grade listed within each one, and the bulk of each section dedicated to describing the typical properties of each grade. Gravislizard (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Rereading the talk page, I now notice that many of the same assertions were being made back in 2011. Gravislizard (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have significantly rewritten the history section for readability and to reduce the information to only the "bullet points" of the technology. My rationale is two-part.

• If we're going to mention specific models and lines, we should put those in a "Models / Lines" section, because we don't need a prosaic explanation of how Bandai released each one, it's just too verbose for an encyclopedia article - a table with model lines, years, and then interesting details (like "released as a 30 year commemorative") would be more appropriate both for readability and reference.

• We could argue that the history section is pointless, that it begins with "Bandai starts producing models" and ends somewhere in the far future, with there being no real relevant details to the general public in between those endpoints. However, it is my observation that gunpla hobbyists almost universally consider the technology very significant, and (if you'll forgive my opining) the people who don't care about that info are unlikely to care about gunpla enough to even read a Wiki page in depth.

I tried to remove as little actual information as possible in this edit process, limiting myself to specific model names that I felt offered more clutter than information, and that which I did remove should be restored from the page history if and when a rewrite creates the proposed "Models / Lines" table.

I can't stress enough that while I am trying to back up this information with citations, it's very difficult to find much in English, but it would be tragic to delete what's here rather than try to chase down references, and I implore anyone reading this to try to fill in the gaps. Gravislizard (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I have reorganized the entire page and removed a lot of trivia. It is now somewhat low on content and requires some backfilling, which I invite anyone with time and energy to do. In my opinion it is much more useful to the average user than it was before, since I don't think very many people would be going to Wikipedia to get the specific dates of particular Gundam lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravislizard (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added a bunch of citations to the article. Several of them are blogs, which is not typically adequate for Wikipedia, but given the uncontroversial and ultimately unimportant nature of this topic I think they can be tolerated. Given that this is a subculture defined almost entirely by amateur hobbyists, I feel it's reasonable to say that on this topic, almost nothing can actually be considered "official" other than information about how the products are produced. Everything else is simply observation of how the community acts, which is almost entirely contained in informal sources. For the same reasons, those sources also have little reason to lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravislizard (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point I've added a lot of photos, almost all of which I took myself, and I'm concerned that this might be perceived as self-promotion. I want to clarify that I searched and searched and could not find a single representative picture of this topic on Commons or anywhere else with a compatible license. I tapped my Twitter followers to obtain two pictures of RX-78s of different grades, but in order to get representative pictures of unassembled models, inner assembly and functions, and finally a comparison to the finished product, I simply had to build a model myself and take pictures of the whole process.

This seems almost like it could be out of scope - "is this really the place to document the entire process? this isn't a hobby site," - but

A) arguably more wiki pages should include more pictures to illustrate how visually distinct elements of something connect, e.g. Home Construction has a picture of a partially built house, but not a finished house to show how the bare studs relate to the completed structure, so it doesn't do a lot of good to someone trying to understand how a building goes from a bare frame to a house,

B) this topic is defined almost entirely by the process of assembling these models,

C) the paper encyclopedias I grew up reading contained "start to finish" image sequences just like these.

So I think this is a good use of space. It's a highly visual medium, so it needs a lot of pictures.Gravislizard (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed as much un-encyclopedic opinion as I can from the article, but what remains may come off as having a biased tone, such as the assertion that the parts are "highly articulated" or "extremely detailed." I can't think of a way to make this any more objective - personally, I've never seen plastic parts in anything that are as detailed as the ones in these kits. I didn't really know we had injection molding technology this advanced, and to my eyes it appears to be a standout feature of the product. I'm not an experienced model builder however, so if other models are also built with details this fine, it might be a good idea to replace some of this verbiage with e.g. "typical of high-quality hobbyist models, gunpla are made with highly detailed..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravislizard (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing info about non-gunpla

There may be a debate to be had on this topic. I removed most information about non-Gundam models from this article, including a change I just reverted by User:Protothedweeb because it's specifically titled "Gundam model." I do not profess to be an expert on the gunpla hobby community, and while I can imagine the *term* might be shorthand for other Bandai models in the same design style, I feel like "Gundam model" needs to mean things *from the Gundam series.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravislizard (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Gunplay MG RX-78-2.jpg
• HG RX-78-2 Gunpla with beam saber.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Gunpla assembled posed.jpg
• Gunpla fully assembled.jpg
• Gunpla leg bent.jpg
• Gunpla leg kneeling panelless.jpg
• Gunpla leg straight panelless.jpg
• Gunpla leg straight.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete the Gundam Fix Figuration section?

title is self-explanatory, a figure line dosent really belong in a section about model kits

Additionally, this is on me, but I should the section on Minipla should be deleted as it is not really Gundam-related, and should lines featured in the article be only Gundam-focused (no 30 Minute Missions, etc.)? AranaeHere (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)